Search for: "Strickland v. State" Results 421 - 440 of 917
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Jun 2020, 8:15 am by John Elwood
Texas and United States v. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 6:49 pm by Record on Appeal
United States – immigration removal case where after pleading guilty of a felony the individual was removed, and whether the attorney provided effective assistance of counsel where the attorney did not advise the immigrant of the immigration consequences of the guilty plea (what does “advise” mean; is the court’s decision in Padilla prospective or retrospective; how to make the Strickland standard workable);  Evans v. [read post]
25 Jan 2015, 10:32 am by Andrew Delaney
The first standard applied, the Cronic standard (from the SCOTUS ruling in United States v. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 6:25 pm by Michael O'Hear
 The Court emphasized the high level of deference that federal habeas courts must show to state-court decisions on the merits, particularly state-court decisions rejecting Jackson v. [read post]
12 May 2010, 8:09 pm by Gideon
Connecticut, of course, also treats sex offender registration as regulatory rather than a punitive measure (State v. [read post]
6 Apr 2009, 6:59 am
United States, and now Harbison v. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 9:57 am by Maureen Johnston
Cain 14-567Issue: (1) Whether, when evaluating if a state court’s decision is based upon an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence before the state court under 28 § U.S.C. 2254(d)(2), the clear and convincing standard of Section 2254(e)(1) governs the determination of unreasonableness; (2) whether the state court decision, finding no deficient performance, constituted an unreasonable application of Strickland v. [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 5:12 pm by Viking
  and (2) whether, under Strickland v. [read post]
4 May 2011, 3:02 am by SHG
The idiosyncracy is that New York hasn't adopted the federal test of Strickland v. [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 11:35 am by Madelaine Lane
  The Court ordered oral argument on the application filed by the State Appellate Defender Office in People v. [read post]