De Los Reyes, Ex Parte Joel

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the defendant could not benefit from the holding of Padilla because the defendant’s conviction became final in 2001, prior to the new rule announced in Padilla
• noting that a defendant must file a motion for new trial in the trial court
• noting that a defendant must file a motion for new trial in the trial court
• explaining that, as a matter of state habeas law, a noncitizen defendant whose second theft conviction became final prior to Padilla could not benefit from its holding
• adhering to retroactivity analysis in Chaidez and its holding that Padilla does not apply retroactively
• stating that theft is a crime of moral turpitude

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).