claim that the trial court’s advisement did not satisfy the requirements of due process because the trial court failed to advise the defendant that he could subpoena out-of-state witnesses at the state’s expense. Due process of law does not require that a court inform a defendant of every conceivable constitutional right that might be waived by a guilty or nolo contendere plea. Carried to its logical extreme, this argument would require a court before accepting a guilty or nolo contendere plea, to inform a defendant, among other things, of his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, his right to be protected against being placed twice in jeopardy for the same crime, and his right to reasonable bail. Peo 29 (1974) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 14.] Rather than mechanically determining
holding remedy for boykin violation is not reduction in sentence but either setting aside guilty plea as unintelligent or remand to determine if defendant was properly advised of possible sentences holding that there is generally no constitutional requirement that defendants must always be informed of their right to appeal following a guilty plea holding that district courts failure to advise defendant of right to plead not guilty and right against selfincrimination were implicit in the courts discussion of the rights he would lose if he pleaded guilty holding failure to advise of right to compel witnesses and plead not guilty are not required by boykin and there is absolutely no requirement that defendant be advised of any other rights in order to be able to enter a valid guilty plea holding failure to advise of right to subpoena witnesses does not affect the validity of a guilty plea