Canole v. Hurt

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing “at least the possibility that deficiencies in advice about collateral consequences of a plea may pull a lawyer’s representation below the level of ‘reasonable competence’ by which effective assistance of counsel is constitutionally measured”
• recognizing \at least the possibility that deficiencies in advice about collateral consequences of a plea may pull a lawyer's representation below the level of `reasonable competence' by which effective assistance of counsel is constitutionally measured\
• noting “habitual offender act is a classic example of a... collateral [consequence], in the sense that the consequence requires application of a legal provision extraneous to the definition of the criminal offense and the provisions for sentencing those convicted under it” (citation omitted)
• “defense counsel’s failure to advise of collateral consequences, as under the habitual offender law, is no ground for withdrawing a plea as unintelligent and involuntary”
• “[W]e have consistently held that a sentencing court need not advise a defendant about the habitual offender law before accepting a guilty plea to a predicate offense under that law.” (citations omitted)
• exposure to habitual traffic offender proceeding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).