State v. Zarate’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 state decisions

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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A]ctual knowledge of consequences which are collateral to the guilty plea is not a prerequisite to the entry of a knowing and intelligent plea. A deportation proceeding is a civil proceeding which may result from a criminal prosecution, but is not a part of or enmeshed in the criminal proceeding. It is collateral to the criminal prosecution. While the Sixth Amendment assures an accused of effective assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions, this assurance does not extend to collateral aspects of the prosecution. [[Image here]] The focus of whether counsel provided constitutionally effective assistance in the context of a plea is whether counsel provided his client with an understanding of the law in relation to the facts, so that the accused may make an informed and conscious choice between accepting the prosecution’s offer and going to trial. A defendant’s lack of knowledge that a plea of guilty may lead to deportation does nothing to undermine the plea itself which is, in effect, a confession in open court as to the facts alleged.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nikolaev v. Weber

2. ““Where, as here, a defendant is represented by counsel during the plea process and enters his plea upon the advice of counsel, the voluntariness of the plea depends on whether counsel’s advice ‘was within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.’ ” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56 , 106 S. Ct. 366 , 88 L. Ed. 2d 203 (1985), quoting McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 , 90 S. Ct. 1441 , 25 L. Ed. 2d 763 (1970). “[A] defendant who pleads guilty upon the advice of counsel ‘may only attack the voluntary and intelligent character of the guilty plea by showing that the advice he received from counsel was not within the standards set forth in McMann.’ ” Hill, 474 U.S. at 56-57 , quoting Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 , 93 S. Ct. 1602 , 36 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1973).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 14 Neb. Ct. App. 944 - State v. Drinkwalter

3. “In Maryland, Md. Rule 4-242(e) imposes an affirmative duty upon defense counsel to advise his client of the potential deportation consequences of his plea. Although generally courts have found deportation to be a collateral consequence of a guilty plea and therefore the failure to advise of the consequences is not ineffective assistance of counsel, Md. Rule 4-242(e) specifically requires defense counsel, among others, to advise the defendant that deportation, detention, or ineligibility for citizenship may occur as a result of the guilty plea. Defense counsel’s failure to satisfy the duty imposed by Md. Rule f-242(e) is deficient performance and outside the reasonable bounds of compe tence in that he failed to comply with the mandate of the rule.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 191 Md. App. 408 - State v. DENISYUK