United States v. Manzo, 675 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2012) (defense counsel's failure to anticipate that the drug offenses would be grouped for sentencing purposes and then advise the defendant to move to withdraw his agreement to plead guilty was constitutionally deficient).

United States v. Onyesoh, 674 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. Apr. 4, 2012) (reversing federal conviction for access device fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1029, for lack of proof of essential element that unauthorized "access devices" were be usable; and government did not provide any evidence of usability of the expired credit card numbers).

Arbid v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2012) (neither BIA nor IJ abused their discretion in holding that petitioner was convicted of a "particularly serious crime" rendering him ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal).

United States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. Apr. 2012)
(reversing order granting a motion to reduce the sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), where district court lacked jurisdiction under that statute to modify because the sentence was based on a binding Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, rather than a Sentencing Guidelines range).

Cross v. Sisto, 676 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. Apr. 2012) (district court did not correctly apply California law in determining that the California Supreme Court's denial of the appellant's state petition with citation to Ex parte Swain, 209 P.2d 793 (Cal. 1949), and People v. Duvall, 886 P.2d 1252 (Cal. 1995), necessarily meant that the appellant's petition before the California Supreme Court was untimely).

Cisneros-Perez v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2006) (court could not use dismissed counts, charging spousal abuse, to create an inference that the victim of the simple battery count of which the noncitizen was convicted was in a domestic relationship with the noncitizen defendant); Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007); Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 329-330 (4th Cir. 2001) (decision that assault with dangerous weapon constituted particularly serious crime reversed where immigration court had considered dismissed count in reaching its decision).

Because it is possible to pursue several different forms of post-conviction relief even after probation has ended, and an expungement under Penal Code 1203.4(a), has been obtained, the superior courts jurisdiction over any case in which probation was granted continues under those circumstances. California convictions still exist for some purposes even after an expungement under Penal Code 1203.4(a) has been obtained. (3 B. Witkin & J. Epstein, CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL LAW (2d ed. 1989), 1718, p.

A California hate crimes sentence enhancement, under Penal Code 422.75, does not mean that a conviction carries more than a one-year potential sentence, even after it was reduced to a misdemeanor, because once the court reduces the offense from a felony to a misdemeanor, under Penal Code 17(b), and declares it to be a misdemeanor, then by definition it cannot carry a sentence of more than a year. Penal Code 19. The 422.75 enhancement by its terms only applies to felonies. Once the conviction has been reduced to a misdemeanor, the sentence enhancement no longer applies.

People v. Allexy, 204 Cal.App.4th 1358 (Apr. 16, 2012) (revocation of probation and order that defendant register as a sex offender, in compliance with plea bargain, is affirmed, although there was no statutory basis for the plea bargain bifurcated procedure, because any objection regarding that error was forfeited or invited because defense counsel acquiesced to the court's procedure).

People v. Feyrer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 426 (court has jurisdiction to reduce felony to misdemeanor under Penal Code 17(b), even though a felony sentence enhancement had been admitted or found true).