232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 529 - People v. Ogunmowo’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
23 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229A (§ 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Padilla v. Kentucky · 29 Cal. 3d 591 - People v. Leyba · 16 Cal. 4th 153 - People v. Williams · Jae Lee v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"De novo review is the appropriate standard for a mixed question of fact and law that implicates a defendant's constitutional right. ( People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889 , 899-902 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 23 , 15 P.3d 243 ].) A defendant's claim that he or she was deprived of the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel 'presents a mixed question of fact and law,' and we accordingly review such question independently. ( In re Resendiz (2001) 25 Cal.4th 230 , 248 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 431 , 19 P.3d 1171 ], abrogated in part on other grounds in Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356 , 370 [ 130 S.Ct. 1473 , 176 L.Ed.2d 284 ].) We accord deference to the trial court's factual determinations if supported by substantial evidence in the record, but exercise our independent judgment in deciding whether the facts demonstrate trial counsel's deficient performance and resulting prejudice to the defendant. ( In re Resendiz , supra , 25 Cal.4th at p. 249 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 431 , 19 P.3d 1171 ].)" ( People v. Ogunmowo , supra , 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 76 , 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 529 .)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] person no longer imprisoned or restrained may prosecute a motion to vacate a conviction ... [¶] ... [that] is legally invalid due to a prejudicial error damaging the moving party's ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a plea of ... nolo contendere.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[c]ourts should not upset a plea solely because of post hoc assertions from a defendant about how he would have pleaded but for his attorney's deficiencies. Judges should instead look to contemporaneous evidence to substantiate a defendant's expressed preferences.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.