The great majority of criminal convictions occurs in state courts.  By contrast, relatively few convictions occur in federal courts.  Generally speaking, in federal courts, court and counsel take greater care to follow the procedures required to produce a legally valid conviction, although even there, in busier courts, in more minor cases, mass-production techniques produce frequent errors giving rise to grounds of legal invalidity.

 

            The majority of criminal convictions in all courts follow pleas of guilty or no contest (which have the same effect).  Relatively few criminal convictions occur as a result of jury trials, and even fewer as a result of court trials.  It is usually quite a bit more work and more difficult to set aside a conviction that flowed from a trial than one resulting from a plea by the defendant.  On the other hand, a guilty plea waives all errors in the proceedings other than constitutional and jurisdictional defects, and in California practice, the denial of a motion to suppress evidence.[1]  Thus, the possible claims for relief following a guilty plea are more limited than those following a trial.  Potential grounds to vacate a conviction following a trial are too numerous for complete coverage here.  The focus is therefore on grounds to invalidate guilty pleas.

 

            What follows is a checklist of grounds for vacating guilty pleas.[2]  For the most part these grounds are based on federal constitutional rights, and should be useful in all United States jurisdictions.

[1] California Penal Code § 1237.5.

[2] For other collections of grounds on which habeas corpus has been granted, see 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure 7-13 (1993 Cum. Supp.); Reitz, Federal Habeas Corpus: Postconviction Remedy for State Prisoners, 108 U.Pa.L.Rev. 460, 481-88 (1960); Wells, Habeas Corpus and Freedom of Speech, 1978 Duke L.J. 1307, 1349-51;  D. Wilkes, Federal Post-conviction Remedies and Relief § § 4-4 to 4-9 (2003).

Tenth Circuit

POST CON RELIEF - REQUIREMENT OF OBJECTION IN COURT BELOW - FUTILITY DOCTRINE - NO OBJECTION IS REQUIRED IN THE COURT BELOW TO PRESERVE AN ISSUE FOR APPEAL IF THE RECORD SHOWS THE OBJECTION WOULD HAVE BEEN FUTILE
United States v. Algarate-Valencia, 550 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. Dec. 30, 2008) ("That statement clearly demonstrates that any objection demanding a more complete explanation of the sentence would have been futile. We therefore will not apply the plain-error standard on appeal. See Abuan v. Level 3 Commc'ns, Inc., 353 F.3d 1158, 1172 (10th Cir.2003) (explaining the "futility" exception to Rule 51 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires an objection to preserve an issue for appeal).FN4." Footnote 4 stated: "The "futility" exception applies when "the district court is aware of the party's position and it is plain that further objection would be futile, where [the] litigant's position [was] clearly made to the district court." Abuan v. Level 3 Commc'ns, 353 F.3d 1158, 1172 (10th Cir.2003) (quotations omitted). This rule was applied in the context of waiver in a civil case, id., but we believe that the rule has application in any context where it is absolutely clear an objection would have been futile.").

DC Circuit

POST CON RELIEF - GUILTY PLEA WAIVES CLAIMS
United States v. Delgado-Garcia, ___ F.3d ___ (D.C. Cir. July 23, 2004) (defendants alien smuggling convictions affirmed on appeal; initial, unconditional pleading of guilty to charged crimes acted as waiver of defendants' subsequent due process and maritime law claims).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/dc/033060a.pdf

Other

POST CON RELIEF - GROUNDS - INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL - CASES - WEBSITE
A link to a website with a compilation of IAC claims: http://www.capdefnet.org/hat/contents/constitutional_issues/case.htm