Boykin v. Alabama
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
12,613 later cases cite Boykin v. Alabama; 294 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Boykin v. Alabama?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The court held Boykin nonretroactive to pleas entered before its effective date.
United States ex rel. Fear v. Pennsylvania · Third Circuit · filed
Although the doctrine enunciated in Boykin does not apply retroactively, United States ex rel. Hughes v. Rundle, 419 F.2d 116 (3d Cir. 1969), approving Commonwealth v. Godfrey, 434 Pa. 532, 254 A.2d 923, 1969, the mere fact that relator in the present case was tried before the effective date of Boykin (June 2, 1969) does not deprive him of the right to a hearing on the claim that his guilty plea was constitutionally infirm.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Boykin's plea-colloquy rule to advice about parole prospects.
Anushevitz v. Warden, Nevada State Prison · Supreme Court of Nevada · filed
We find nothing in Boykin that suggests any duty upon the court to advise a defendant regarding the prospects for parole, the granting of which is wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the district judge. Not so, of course, in the case of probation, and the district judge covered that contingency in his colloquy.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Boykin nonretroactive and applied it only prospectively.
Dillard v. State · Supreme Court of South Carolina · filed
The Boykin case was decided on June 2, 1969, and the plea of guilty was made by the appellant on October 25, 1962, and, therefore, is not here controlling, as we ruled in Davies v. State, 253 S. C. 501, 171 S. E. (2d) 720, that Boykin would not be accorded retroactive effect. In view of our decision to only prospectively apply Boykin, which is now the prevailing view, the appellant’s final question is to be determined in accordance with the rule announced by this court in Thompson v. State, 248 S. C. 475, 151 S. E. (2d) 221.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Boykin nonretroactive to the pre-Boykin pleas before it.
State v. Burchett · Supreme Court of Arizona · filed
We have reviewed the record and we find that the pleas both as to the first offense and as to the two counts of the second offense were voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly made. It should be noted that Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) is not retroactive and would not apply to this case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Boykin nonretroactive to a plea entered before Boykin.
Dukes v. Warden, Connecticut State Prison · Supreme Court of Connecticut · filed
Boykin rule was not applicable retroactively to cases such as the present case in which the plea was entered prior to the Boy-kin decision, Consiglio v. Warden, 160 Conn. 151, 166, 276 A.2d 773.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court applied pre-Boykin law because Boykin was nonretroactive.
Brodkowicz v. State · Supreme Court of Missouri · filed
Movant’s plea having antedated Boykin and Boykin not being applied retroactively, State v. Grimm, Mo.Sup., 461 S.W.2d 746, and cases cited 1. c. 752 [1], we consider whether the plea of guilty must be set aside solely on the ground that the admittedly sparse record fails to demonstrate a substantial compliance with Criminal Rule 25.04.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Boykin's affirmative-record rule nonretroactive to a pre-Boykin plea.
Andrews v. Commonwealth · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · filed
The case of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 243-244 (1969), which held that the record must affirmatively disclose that the defendant voluntarily and understanding^ entered his pleas of guilty, even if here applicable is not retroactive (as Andrews concedes), and therefore cannot affect our result.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court applied its rule that Boykin is nonretroactive.
McClellan v. Commonwealth · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · filed
The decision in the Boykin case is not retroactive. Andrews v. Commonwealth, 361 Mass. 722, 726.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court reaffirmed its refusal to apply Boykin retroactively.
Goodwin v. State · Supreme Court of Missouri · filed
Actually, the only argument of appellant in this court on this issue is for this court’s retroactive application of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed.2d 274 (1969). This court has previously declined to follow this course.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court reaffirmed that Boykin does not apply retroactively to pre-Boykin pleas.
Campbell v. State · Supreme Court of Indiana · filed
In Conley, we declined to give Boykin retroactive application and held that in the absence of an allegation and the showing of ineffective counsel, we would conclude that the attorney provided full and adequate assistance.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court applied pre-Boykin law rather than Boykin's affirmative-record requirement to earlier pleas.
State v. Bailey · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · filed
The reliance upon Boykin is unwarranted since the previous convictions of the defendant were both pre-Boykin. According to the pre-Boykin law, which we apply here, the defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his plea was made involuntarily and unknowingly.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
In an unpublished opinion, the court declined to extend Boykin's guilty-plea framework to a parent's submission in a dependency proceeding.
In re L.P. · California Court of Appeal, Sixth District · filed
First, mother's reliance upon the Boykin/Tahl analogy is misplaced because California's former rule of automatic reversal in the absence of explicit advisements has been abrogated by subsequent judicial decision. (See People v. Mosby, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 361; People v. Howard, supra, 1 Cal.4th at pp. 1175-1179.) Second, the analogy between a defendant's submission in a criminal case and a parent's submission in a dependency case is weak at best.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Boykin v. Alabama and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace