"The ABA Standards require that counsel should be provided at every state of the proceedings, including sentencing, appeal, and post-conviction review." (J. HALL, JR., PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE PRACTICE 2:5, p. 41 and n.1 (2005), citing ABA STANDARDS, PROVIDING DEFENSE SERVICES, Std. 5-5.2.) "There is no right to counsel for discretionary review or collateral review unless it can lead to procedural default in a mandatory post-trial process.") (Id. at 2.6, p. 46 [footnotes omitted].), citing Robinson v. Norris, 60 F.3d 457 (8th Cir. 1995); Dawan v. Lockhart, 980 F.2d 470 (8th Cir. 1992) (no right to counsel on discretionary review, unless it can lead to procedural default in a mandatory post-trial process).



Defense counsel has the duty to present appropriate motions at the trial court level to protect the rights of the defendant. This is a part of the Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. Thus, counsel has the duty to file appropriate motions to withdraw guilty pleas or for a new trial, and the motions must be filed and pursued competently. (J. HALL, JR., PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE PRACTICE 20:2, p. 736 (2005) [footnotes omitted].)



When the need for a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is indicated by the facts or circumstances of the case, defense counsel has a duty to pursue it. For example, defense counsel has been held under a duty to file a motion to withdraw the plea where the prosecutor failed to adhere to the plea agreement or where the pre-sentence report indicated the defendant still maintained his innocence. Counsel has been found ineffective for failure to raise the defect of lack of a factual basis for the plea of guilty, [FN6] or the defendant's competence to enter it, the trial court's rejection of an alternative sentence, or not timely pursuing such a withdrawal motion.



(J. HALL, JR., PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE PRACTICE 20:2, p. 737 (2005) [footnotes omitted]; see generally, Annotation, Adequacy of defense counsel's representation of criminal client regarding post-plea remedies, 13 A.L.R.4th 533 3-7.



Defense counsel also has a duty to competently present post-trial motions. Accordingly, defense counsel have been held ineffective for failing to present fundamental grounds for plea withdrawal in a motion. (J. HALL, JR., PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE PRACTICE 20:2, p. 736 (2005), citing People v. Porter, 61 Ill.App.3d 941, 19 Ill. Dec. 173, 378 N.E.2d 788 (4th Dist. 1978) (abrogated on other grounds by People v. Wilk, 124 Ill.2d 93, 124 Ill.Dec. 398, 529 N.E.2d 218 (1988) (obvious ground for withdrawal omitted); see generally Annotation, Adequacy of defense counsel's representation of criminal client regarding appellate and post-conviction remedies, 15 A.L.R.4th 582 (1982).



Federal Decisions - Ninth Circuit.



Raley v. Ylst, 470 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2006);

Raley v. Ylst, 444 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2006);

Landrigan v. Schriro, 441 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2006);

Frierson v. Woodford, 463 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2006);

Moormann v. Schriro, 426 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2005);

Fields v. Brown, 431 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2005);

U.S. v. Sandoval-Lopez, 409 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2005);

Davis v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 628 (9th Cir. 2004);

Johnson v. U.S., 362 F.3d 636 (9th Cir. 2004);

Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567 (9th Cir. 2004);

Cockett v. Ray, 333 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003);

U.S. v. Skurdal, 341 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2003);

Hayes v. Woodford, 301 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2002);

Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 2002);

Payton v. Woodford, 258 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2001);

Bailey v. Newland, 263 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2001);

U.S. v. Baker, 256 F.3d 855 (9th Cir. 2001);

Wildman v. Johnson, 261 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001);

U.S. v. Jimenez Recio, 258 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2001);

U.S. v. Recio, 226 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2000);

Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2000);

Gerlaugh v. Stewart, 129 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 1997);

Pollard v. White, 119 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1997);

Taylor v. Reno, 164 F.3d 440 (9th Cir. 1998);

Coe v. Thurman, 922 F.2d 528 (9th Cir. 1990);

Katz v. U.S., 920 F.2d 610 (9th Cir. 1990);

Miller v. Keeney, 882 F.2d 1428 (9th Cir. 1989);

U.S. v. Lewis, 880 F.2d 243 (9th Cir. 1989);

Branch v. Cupp, 736 F.2d 533 (9th Cir. 1984);

Gustave v. U.S., 627 F.2d 901 (9th Cir. 1980);

U.S. v. Currie, 589 F.2d 993 (9th Cir. 1979);

Miller v. McCarthy, 607 F.2d 854 (9th Cir. 1979);

Farrow v. United States, 580 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir. 1978);

Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1978);

Cooper v. Fitzharris, 551 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir. 1977);

High v. Rhay, 519 F.2d 109 (9th Cir. 1975);

Hayward v. Stone, 527 F.2d 256 (9th Cir. 1975);

Riser v. Craven, 501 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1974);

Sanders v. Craven, 488 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1973);

Buster v. Hocker, 428 F.2d 820 (9th Cir. 1970.



Federal Decisions. District Court Decisions in Ninth Circuit.



Fonseca v. Hall, 568 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (C.D. Cal. 2008);

Penton v. Kernan, 528 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (S.D. Cal. 2007);

Pop v. Yarborough, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (C.D. Cal. 2005);

Banyard v. Duncan, 342 F. Supp. 2d 865 (C.D. Cal. 2004);

Franklin v. Small, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2001);

Odle v. Calderon, 884 F. Supp. 1404 (N.D. Cal. 1995);

U.S. v. Nguyen, 997 F. Supp. 1281 (C.D. Cal. 1998);

U.S. v. Racich, 35 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (S.D. Cal. 1999);

Campbell v. Crist, 491 F. Supp. 586 (D. Mont. 1980);



Federal Decisions - Other Circuits.



Wilkins v. Bowersox, 145 F.3d 1006 (8th Cir. 1998);

U.S. v. Wolff, 127 F.3d 84 (D.C. Cir. 1997);

U.S. v. Taylor, 77 F.3d 368 (11th Cir. 1996);

U.S. v. Garcia, 956 F.2d 41 (4th Cir. 1992);

Tolliver v. U.S., 563 F.2d 1117 (4th Cir. 1977);




State Decisions.



People v. Nicewanner, 93 Ill. App. 3d 1, 48 Ill. Dec. 503, 416 N.E.2d 776, 13 A.L.R.4th 527 (3d Dist. 1981);

Ex parte Harris, 596 S.W.2d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980);

People v. Morguez, 90 Ill. App. 3d 471, 45 Ill. Dec. 795, 413 N.E.2d 128 (1st Dist. 1980);

Com. v. Manning, 263 Pa. Super. 430, 398 A.2d 212 (1979);

Com. v. Ingram, 467 Pa. 591, 359 A.2d 754 (1976).