People v. Patterson

California Supreme Court May 25, 2017 No. S225193MPublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court modified its prior opinion to clarify the standard for establishing prejudice from counsel's alleged errors in the context of a guilty plea that results in mandatory deportation.

Issues

What is the standard for establishing prejudice when a defendant claims counsel's incompetence led to a guilty plea resulting in mandatory deportation?

Disposition. Judgment unaffected; petition for rehearing denied.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“To establish that he was prejudiced by counsel‟s alleged errors, Patterson must show „that a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel‟s incompetence, he would not have pled guilty‟”

Filed 5/24/17

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, ) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) S225193 v. ) ) Ct. App. 4/2 E060758 RON DOUGLAS PATTERSON, ) ) Riverside County Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. EE220540 ____________________________________)

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

THE COURT: The opinion filed herein on March 27, 2017, appearing at 2 Cal.5th 885, is modified as follows: The first sentence of the second paragraph on page 901 is revised to read: “To establish that he was prejudiced by counsel‟s alleged errors, Patterson must show „that a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel‟s incompetence, he would not have pled guilty‟ (Resendiz, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 253) to the charge of possession of MDMA, which subjected him to mandatory deportation.” This modification does not affect the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied.

People v. Patterson

AI Brief

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief