The great majority of criminal convictions occur in state courts.  By contrast, relatively few convictions occur in federal courts.  Generally speaking, in federal courts, court and counsel take greater care to follow the procedures required to produce a legally valid conviction, although even there, in busier courts, in more minor cases, mass-production techniques produce frequent errors.

 

            The majority of criminal convictions in all courts follow pleas of guilty or no contest (which have the same effect).  Relatively few criminal convictions occur as a result of jury trials, and even fewer as a result of court trials.  It is usually quite a bit more work and more difficult to set aside a conviction that flowed from a trial than one resulting from a plea by the defendant.  On the other hand, a guilty plea waives all errors in the proceedings other than constitutional and jurisdictional defects, and in California practice, the denial of a motion to suppress evidence.[1]  Thus, the possible claims for relief following a guilty plea are more limited than those following a trial.  Potential grounds to vacate a conviction following a trial are too numerous for complete coverage herein.  The focus here is therefore on grounds to invalidate guilty pleas.

 

            What follows is a checklist of grounds for vacating guilty pleas.[2]

[1] Penal Code § 1237.5.

[2] For other collections of grounds on which habeas corpus has been granted, see 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure 7-13 (1993 Cum. Supp.); Reitz, Federal Habeas Corpus: Postconviction Remedy for State Prisoners, 108 U.Pa.L.Rev. 460, 481-88 (1960); Wells, Habeas Corpus and Freedom of Speech, 1978 Duke L.J. 1307, 1349-51;  D. Wilkes, Federal Post-conviction Remedies and Relief § § 4-4 to 4-9 (1996 & 1998 Supp.).

Other

POST CON RELIEF " GROUNDS " INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL " FAILURE TO GIVE ACCURATE IMMIGRATION ADVICE " RETROACTIVITY OF PADILLA
The Supreme Courts retroactivity analysis, in Teague v. Lane, does not apply in state court post-conviction proceedings. See Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 282, 128 S. Ct. 1029, 169 L. Ed. 2d 859 (2008) (stating that Teague "does not in any way limit the authority of a state court, when reviewing its own state criminal convictions, to provide a remedy for a violation that is declared 'nonretroactive' under Teague."); Denisyuk v. State, 30 A.3d 914 (2011);