In order to forestall claims under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention (VCCR) about consular notification, Seattle state prosecutors are trying to get defendants to admit alienage on the record, in court, at arraignment, so the defendant can sign an acknowledgment of having been advised of the right.

Medellin v. Dretke, ___ U.S. ___(May 23, 2005) (certiorari to review defendant's habeas corpus petition, alleging violation of Vienna Convention rights, improvidently granted where Texas state courts may provide defendant with the relief he seeks).
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/04-5928.html

Carter, Linda E. Compliance with ICJ provisional measures and the meaning of review and reconsideration under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.). 25 Mich. J. Intl L. 117-134 (2003).

If the court advised the noncitizen defendant only that s/he "may" be deported as a result of the plea, when the truth is that deportation is mandatory, the Oregon courts will vacate the conviction. Case?

United States v. Singh, __ F.Supp.3d __ (D.C. Feb. 24, 2003) (Plea involuntary where prosecutor and judge informed defendant that deportation was a ‘possibility’, although in fact, deportation was nearly certain as the plea was to an aggravated felony; motion to vacate granted).

Davis v. Woodford, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2006) (in 1986 the state expressly agreed to treat the robbery conviction (which was based on 8 robberies) as only one "strike" for purposes of later recidivist sentencing, so counting that conviction as eight "strikes" violated the terms of defendants plea agreement; California Supreme Courts denial of Petitioners state habeas petition was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in the light of the evidence presented in state court, 28 U.S.C.

United States v. Transfiguracion, 442 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2006) (government could not back out of plea agreement in drug case where the defendant has complied with the agreement by cooperating, even though the charges were ultimately dismissed; under rule that ambiguities in contracts "are to be construed unfavorably to the drafter," Blacks Law Dictionary 328 (7th ed. 1999)), the government was stuck with the results of its sloppy plea drafting).

United States v. Benitez, 124 S.Ct. 2333 (June 14, 2004) (to vacate plea on grounds of F.R.Crim.P. 11 errors [as distinguished from "structural errors" or fundamental constitutional errors under Boykin v. Alabama, to vacate the plea], and no objection was raised in trial court, defendant must establish reasonable probability that but for error, he would not have pleaded guilty).
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/03167.html

United States v. Bailon-Santana, 429 F.3d 1258 (9th Cir. Dec. 6, 2005) (conviction vacated due to invalid jury waiver where the district courts finding that defendants lawyer properly translated a jury trial waiver form was not supported by the record).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0450079p.pdf

Bockting v. Bayer, __ F.3d __, 2005 WL 406284 (9th Cir. Feb. 22, 2005) (Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) retroactively applies to cases on federal habeas review from state conviction; although a new rule, it is both a "watershed rule" and one "without which the likelihood of an accurate conviction is seriously diminished." [Schriro v. Summerlin, 124 S.Ct. 2519 (2004)]).