In the case of Kernan v. Cuero, Michael Cuero pleaded guilty to two counts after a plea agreement with California prosecutors. However, later it was discovered that he had a prior conviction which could be considered as a "strike" under California's three-strikes law and increase his sentence significantly. The state requested to amend the complaint to include this strike but allowed Cuero an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea due to this change in circumstances. Instead of withdrawing, he again pleaded guilty and received an increased sentence based on the additional strike. Cuero then filed for habeas corpus relief arguing that by not allowing him to keep his original deal (which did not account for the extra strike), his constitutional rights were violated. Both District Court and Ninth Circuit agreed with him initially. However, upon reaching Supreme Court review in 2017, it was ruled against Cuero stating there is no federal right guaranteeing a defendant can benefit from incorrect legal advice or maintain their initial plea bargain when new information comes into play affecting sentencing guidelines.

In the dissenting opinion for Kernan v. Cuero, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent and principles of federalism. She contended that the state court did not make an unreasonable determination in interpreting California law to allow plea renegotiations when new charges are added. The defendant had initially agreed to plead guilty with an understanding of his maximum potential sentence, but this changed when additional charges were brought against him later on. According to Sotomayor, it was reasonable for the state court to conclude that he should be allowed another opportunity to negotiate a plea deal under these circumstances. Sotomayor also criticized the majority's reliance on hypothetical scenarios rather than focusing on actual facts and legal standards applicable in this case. She pointed out that there is no clear evidence showing how California courts would have ruled if they were presented with similar situations as those imagined by her colleagues. Lastly, she expressed concern about potential implications of this ruling for future cases involving defendants who find themselves in similar predicaments as Mr.Cuero - facing harsher sentences due to changes in their charge sheets after initial plea agreements.