Yanez v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Padilla does not expand counsel’s duty to advise on potential status adjustment
• holding that Padilla does not expand counsel’s duty to advise on potential status adjustment
• holding that Padilla does not expand counsel’s duty to advise on potential status adjustment
• holding that Padilla does not expand counsel’s duty to advise on potential status adjustment
• discussing the prejudice standard under Hill v. Lockhardt, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985) and stating: “A defendant must establish ‘that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Roberto Morales Diaz v. State of Iowa
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 2017-06-09· cited 64×
• Amended June 15, 2017 Roberto Morales Diaz v. State of Iowa
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 2017-06-09
• Amended August 11, 2017 Roberto Morales Diaz v. State of Iowa
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 2017-06-09
• YINETTE MARIA NUNEZ v. STATE OF FLORIDA
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2021-09-01

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Strickland v. Washington
  Supreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 123,578×
• Hill v. Lockhart
  Supreme Court· 1985-11-18· cited 11,299×
• Padilla v. Kentucky
  Supreme Court· 2010-03-31· cited 5,017×
• Hernandez v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2012-11-21· cited 86×
• Cano v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2013-04-24· cited 20×
• Odegaard v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2014-03-28· cited 12×
• Angela Rosario v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2015-01-07· cited 11×
• Jermaine Facey v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2014-07-23· cited 4×
• Ibarra v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2013-03-20· cited 4×