Fields v. Mullin

2 Citing cases

  1. Boulden v. Janecka

    CIV 09-0770 BB/KBM (D.N.M. Sep. 3, 2010)   Cited 3 times

    Rather, it is an important safeguard that protects defendants from incompetent counsel or misunderstandings."), cert. denied sub nom. Fields v Mullin, 537 U.S. 1023 (2002); United States v. Hall, 2010 WL 1610310 at **1-2 (6th Cir. 4/22/10) (" Hall did not raise [his coercion] objection during his plea colloquy with the district court," but did tell the district judge that the plea was "involuntary" because he did not "want to be doing this;" Sixth Circuit held that defendant's "theory of coercion instead ultimately rests on the reality that his conduct forced him to a difficult choice between two unattractive options: going to trial or pleading guilty. That, however, is not a cognizable theory of coercion.

  2. Manzanares v. Romero

    CIV 05-1105 JH/KBM (D.N.M. Feb. 3, 2006)   Cited 1 times

    "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, 474 U.S. at 56; see also e.g., Fields v. Gibson, 277 F.3d 1203, 1215-1216 (10th Cir.); cert. denied sub nom., Fields v. Mullin, 537 U.S. 1023 (2002). Manzanares contests whether the State could enhance the penalties for his most recent conviction based on the prior convictions.