green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.7 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2012–2017 ·
…a first appeal as of right therefore is not adjudicated in accord with due process of law if the appellant does not have the effective assistance of an attorney.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Winstead v. State
a first appeal as of right therefore is not adjudicated in accord with due process of law if the appellant does not have the effective assistance of an attorney.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Department of Human Services v. W. S. C.
a first appeal as of right therefore is not adjudicated in accord with due process of law if the appellant does not have the effective assistance of an attorney.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Allen Levi Monroe v. James A. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
Ct. 1781, 84 L.Ed.2d 840 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Martinez-Villareal v. Lewis
See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 393 , 105 S.Ct. 830, 834 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 , reh’g denied, 470 U.S. 1065 , 105 S.Ct. 1783 , 84 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2296, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3852 Ramon Martinez-Villareal, Petitioner-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Samuel Lewis, Respondent-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 393 , 105 S.Ct. 830, 834 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 , reh'g denied, 470 U.S. 1065 , 105 S.Ct. 1783 , 84 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985). 42 However, this generality will not prevail in the face of specific Supreme Court authority on the question of the adequacy of a state's proportionality review.
discussed
Cited "see"
Yourdon v. Kelly
(2×)
See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 , 105 S.Ct. 830 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 reh’g denied, 470 U.S. 1065 , 105 S.Ct. 1783 , 84 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985). 2 Further, in Simmons, supra, an attorney’s five-year delay in perfecting an appeal was determined to be “nominal and ineffective as a matter of law and [violative of] the due process rights of the convicted client.” Simmons, supra, at 868.
discussed
Cited "see"
Williams v. James
(2×)
See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 , 105 S.Ct. 830 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 , reh’g denied, 470 U.S. 1065 , 105 S.Ct. 1783 , 84 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985). 5 Further, in Simmons, supra, an attorney’s five-year delay in perfecting an appeal was determined to be “nominal and ineffective as a matter of law and [violative of] the due process rights of the convicted client.” Simmons, supra, at 868.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Chateaugay Corp.
See, Mills *75 Music, Inc. v. Snyder, 469 U.S. 153 , 105 S.Ct. 638 , 83 L.Ed.2d 556 , reh’g denied, 470 U.S. 1065 , 105 S.Ct. 1782 , 84 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Williams v. State
See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 397 , 105 S.Ct. 830, 836-37 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821, 830-31 (recognition of due process right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal), reh’g denied, 470 U.S. 1065 , 105 S.Ct. 1783 , 84 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985). *893 Williams’ statutory right, however, like its constitutional counterpart, is not absolute.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Scott v. State
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 , 103 S.Ct. 3308 , 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983) ("It is also . recognized that the accused has the ultimate authority to make certain fundamental decisions regarding the case, as to whether to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his or her own behalf, or take an appeal ... [but no] decision of this Court suggests, however, that the indigent defendant has a constitutional right to compel appointed counsel to press nonfrivolous points requested by the client, if counsel, as a matter of professional judgment, decides not to present those points.”); see also Evitts…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
De La Rosa
v.
Texas
v.
Texas
No. 84-6316 (A-654).
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 18, 1985.
Lead Opinion
C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.
Dissent
Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,
dissenting.
Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant the application for stay and the petition for writ of certiorari and would vacate the death sentence in this case.