v. Drake, 785 P.2d 1257, 1272 (Colo.1990). See also State v. Moses, 280 Kan. 939, 127 P.3d 330, 335-40 (2006) (recognizing the failure to advise a defendant of compulsory process and other'rights does not automatically result in the withdrawal of a guilty plea and examining the circumstances surrounding that plea including a written waiver, representation by counsel, familiarity with the criminal justice system and defendants- familiarity with the case against him and the benefit of the plea agreement); State v. Salter, 515 So.2d 609, 610 (La.Ct.App.1987) (concluding “[t]he right to compulsory process is not one of the rights required by the trial judge in order to [e]nsure that a guilty plea is knowingly and intelligently made.”); State v. Rau, 367 N.W.2d 613, 616 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (<HOLDING>); State v. Miller, 110 Ariz. 304, 518 P.2d 127,
holding that counsels failure to advise the defendant of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea cannot rise to the level of constitutionally ineffective assistance 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 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 that an attorney is required to advise a defendant of the direct consequences of a plea and will not be found ineffective for failing to advise of collateral consequences of the plea holding failure to advise of right to subpoena witnesses does not affect the validity of a guilty plea