green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
28.7 score
“summary disposition may also be appropriate where the defendant has failed to present any affidavits or other evidentiary support for the naked assertions contained in his motion.”
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 42 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Spadaro
summary disposition may also be appropriate where the defendant has failed to present any affidavits or other evidentiary support for the naked assertions contained in his motion.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dorsey v. Steele
ourts generally presume that counsel will subordinate his or her pecuniary interests and honor his or her professional responsibility to a client.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Scurry
Cir. 1998)). 7 While the Circuit did not decide the merits of whether Mr. Scurry received constitutionally ineffective assistance, it did observe that Ms. Davis made several statements at oral argument that “were not inconsistent with that claim.” Id. at 1068.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Raymond
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Taylor, 139 F.3d at 929; see United States v. Loughery, 908 F.2d 1014, 1018 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Shah
Generally, when a defendant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea, “the district court should 15 hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the merits of the defendant’s claims.” Taylor, 139 F.3d at 932.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Wilkins
(2×)
An evidentiary hearing is not automatically required, however, and may be unnecessary where “the motion . . . fail[s] to allege sufficient facts or circumstances ‘upon which the elements of constitutionally deficient performance might properly be found’” or “where the defendant has failed to present any affidavits or other evidentiary support for the naked assertions contained in his motion.” Taylor, 139 F.3d at 933; see also Islam, 932 F.3d at 963 (“[W]e have ‘never held that any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel . . . automatically entitles a party to an evidentiary …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lonnell Tucker
Taylor, 139 F.3d at 934 (cleaned up); see also Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 784 (1987) (“[W]e generally 18 presume that the lawyer is fully conscious of the overarching duty of complete loyalty to his or her client.”).4 We assume that Conte was conflicted and resolve this appeal under Cuyler’s second prong, which considers whether the conflict led to an “actual lapse in representation.” McGill, 815 F.3d at 943 (cleaned up).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Magruder
Generally, when a defendant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea, “the district court should hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the merits of the defendant’s claims.” Taylor, 139 F.3d at 932.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Magruder
Generally, when a defendant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea, “the district court should hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the merits of the defendant’s claims.” Taylor, 139 F.3d at 932.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Monzel
(2×)
Ultimately, Mr. Monzel has nothing but his own “naked assertions” to support this claim_ assertions that are directly contradicted by his own evidence_and he therefore cannot demonstrate that Mr. Bos provided him with constitutionally ineffective assistance on this basis § IayM, 139 F.3d at 933. 2.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Caleb Gray-Burriss
(5×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
When a defendant claims a conflict between himself and his attorney, he must show that the attorney was “forced to make a choice advancing his own interest at the expense of his client’s.” Taylor, 139 F.3d at 930; see Bruce, 89 F.3d at 893 (same).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Zaitar
See Jones, 642 F.3d at 1156-57 ; Taylor, 139 F.3d at 929; McCoy, 215 F.3d at 106 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Daoud Zeiter
See Jones, 642 F.3d at 1156 - 57; Taylor, 139 F.3d at 929; McCoy, 215 F.3d at 106 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Martinez
Id. at 933 (stating that the court may summarily deny a motion if it “concludes that the defendant has not alleged any cognizable claim for relief, or that the defendant’s conclusory allegations are unsupported by specifics, or that the defendant’s allegations in the face of the record are wholly incredible” (citation omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rush
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See Simms, 730 F.Supp.2d at 61 ; Taylor, 139 F.3d at 933.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Moore
Taylor, 139 F.3d at 933. 6 He provides no objective evidence reflecting any deficient conduct by Spencer that rendered the guilty plea not knowing and voluntary.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sibblies
The defendant’s representations at the plea hearing regarding “adequacy of counsel and the knowing and voluntary nature of his plea ... may ‘constitute a formidable barrier’ to ... later refutations.” Taylor, 139 F.3d at 933 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 , 97 S.Ct. 1621 , 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thomas
The defendant’s representations at the plea hearing regarding “adequacy of counsel and the knowing and voluntary nature of his plea ... may ‘constitute a formidable barrier’ to ... later refutations.” Taylor, 139 F.3d at 933 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 , 97 S.Ct. 1621 , 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Curry
(3×)
In reviewing such a refusal, we consider three factors: “(1) whether the defendant has asserted a viable claim of innocence; (2) whether the delay between the guilty plea and the motion to withdraw has substantially prejudiced the government’s ability to prosecute the case; and (3) whether the guilty plea was somehow tainted.” Id. (quoting United States v. McCoy, 215 F.3d 102, 106 (D.C.Cir.2000) (quoting Taylor, 139 F.3d at 929)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Tolson
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
In other words, “a defendant [must] show that his counsel advanced his own, or another client’s, interest to the detriment of the defendant.” Taylor, 139 F.3d at 930.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hanson, Jamal
The court’s decision on Hanson’s withdrawal motion was governed by former Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provided: “If a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere is made before sentence is imposed, the *988 court may permit the plea to be withdrawn if the defendant shows any fair and just reason.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(e) (2001) (emphasis added). 1 In reviewing the denial of a motion to withdraw, we consider three factors: “ ‘(1) whether the defendant has asserted a viable claim of innocence; (2) whether the delay between the guilty plea and t…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. McCoy, Michael
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Involuntariness of the Plea Prior to sentencing the “standard for allowing withdrawal of a plea is fairly lenient when the defendant can show that the plea was entered unconstitutionally.” Taylor, 139 F.3d at 929; see Cray, 47 F.3d at 1207 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Keith McGill
See United States v. Taylor, 139 F.3d 924 , 930 (D.C.Cir.1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Basu
See United States v. Taylor, 139 F.3d 924 , 933 (D.C.Cir.1998) (noting that denial of a motion to withdraw a plea without holding an evidentiary hearing may be proper when the motion “fail[s] to allege sufficient facts or circumstances ‘upon which the elements of constitutionally deficient [assistance of counsel] might properly be found’ ” (quoting United States v. Pinkney, 543 F.2d 908, 916 (D.C.Cir.1976))).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Basu
See United States v. Taylor, 139 F.3d 924 , 933 (D.C.Cir.1998) (noting that denial of a motion to withdraw a plea without holding an evidentiary hearing may be proper when the motion “fail[s] to allege sufficient facts or circumstances ‘upon which the elements of constitutionally deficient [assistance of counsel] might properly be found’ ” (quoting United States v. Pinkney, 543 F.2d 908, 916 (D.C.Cir.1976))).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Orleans-Lindsay
See United States v. Taylor, 139 F.3d 924 , 930-31 (D.C.Cir.1998); United States v. Bruce, 89 F.3d 886, 893 (D.C.Cir.1996); Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 349-50 , 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Tolson
See United States v. Taylor, 139 F.3d 924 , 930 (D.C.Cir.1998); see also Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 349-50 , 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980) (requiring defendant to show active representation of conflicting interests).
discussed
Cited "see"
Roll v. Bowersox
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See United States v. Taylor, 139 F.3d 924 , 932 (D.C.Cir.1998); United States v. O’Neil, 118 F.3d 65 , 71-2 (2nd Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. --, 118 S.Ct. 728 , 139 L.Ed.2d 666 (1998); United States v. DiCarlo, 575 F.2d 952, 957 (1st Cir.1978); United States v. Wright, 845 F.Supp. 1041 , 1073 n. 35 (D.N.J.), aff'd, 46 F.3d 1120 (3rd Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re: Sealed Case
Because "[t]he right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial is a bedrock principle in our justice system," a person's "inability to present a claim of trial error is of particular concern when the claim is one of ineffective assistance of counsel." Martinez v. Ryan , 566 U.S. 1 , 12, 132 S.Ct. 1309 , 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012) ; see also United States v. Taylor , 139 F.3d 924 , 931 (D.C.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Burnett
Cir. 1995) ); see also United States v. Taylor , 139 F.3d 924 , 932-33 (D.C.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Burnett
Cir. 1995)); see also United States v. Taylor, 139 F.3d 924 , 932–33 (D.C.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Hebron
Rec. 6:26-8:50; see also United States v. Taylor, 139 F.3d 924 , 933 (D.C.Cir.1998) (citing Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 , 97 S.Ct. 1621 , 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Basu
Jan. 4, 2000) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ) (noting that it is within the court’s discretion whether to hold a hearing when it is the same court that presided over the petitioner’s criminal proceedings); see also United States v. Taylor, 139 F.3d 924 , 933 (D.C.Cir.1998) (suggesting that a hearing is unnecessary if a motion to vacate on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel fails “to allege sufficient facts or circumstances upon which the elements of constitutionally deficient performance might properly be found” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Henry
Simms v. United States, 730 F.Supp.2d 58, 61 (D.D.C.2010); see also United States v. Taylor, 139 F.3d 924 , 933 (D.C.Cir.1998) (noting that "[s]ummary disposition” of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “may [] be appropriate where the defendant has failed to present any affidavits or other evidentiary support for the naked assertions contained in his motion”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lawrence
Simms v. United States, 730 F.Supp.2d 58, 61 (D.D.C.2010); see also United States v. Taylor, 139 F.3d 924 , 933 (D.C.Cir.1998) (noting that “[s]ummary disposition” of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “may [ ] be appropriate where the defendant has failed to present any affidavits or other evidentiary support for the naked assertions contained in his motion”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Turner
Simms v. United States, 730 F.Supp.2d 58, 61 (D.D.C.2010); see also United States v. Taylor, 139 F.3d 924 , 933 (D.C.Cir.1998) (noting that “[s]ummary disposition” of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “may [ ] be appropriate where the defen *212 dant has failed to present any affidavits or other evidentiary support for the naked assertions contained in his motion”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mitchell, Dennis L.
We have been careful to guard against “defendants’ attempts to force their ineffective assistance claims into the ‘actual conflict of interest’ framework ... and thereby supplant the strict Strickland standard with the far more lenient Cuyler test.” Bruce, 89 F.3d at 893 ; see also United States v. Taylor, 139 F.3d 924 , 930-32 (D.C.Cir.1998).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Kyler
See, e.g., United States v. Taylor, 139 F.3d 924 , 928 (D.C.Cir.1998) (addressing whether defendant’s plea was coerced by financial pressure of counsel’s “unrelenting” fee demands); United States v. Torres, 129 F.3d 710, 716 (2d.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Taylor, Robert N.
v.
Taylor, Robert N.
97-3028.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Apr 21, 1998.
139 F.3d 924
Published
Citer courts: D.C. Circuit (2) · W.D. Missouri (1)
United States Court of Appeals
For The District of Columbia Circuit
No. 97-3028 September Term, 1997 96cr00233-01
United States of America,
Appellee
v.
Robert N. Taylor,
Appellant
BEFORE: Edwards, Chief Judge, Wald and Rogers, Circuit Judges
O R D E R
It is ORDERED, by the Court, on its own motion, that the opinion filed herein this date is amended, as follows:
At Page 13, Footnote 8
Line 2: delete "paymnet" and insert "payment"
Line 4: delete the comma after "1078"
close the space between "D" and "N" so the text reads "D.N.J."
Line 5: delete "3rd" and insert "3d"
For The District of Columbia Circuit
No. 97-3028 September Term, 1997 96cr00233-01
United States of America,
Appellee
v.
Robert N. Taylor,
Appellant
BEFORE: Edwards, Chief Judge, Wald and Rogers, Circuit Judges
O R D E R
It is ORDERED, by the Court, on its own motion, that the opinion filed herein this date is amended, as follows:
At Page 13, Footnote 8
Line 2: delete "paymnet" and insert "payment"
Line 4: delete the comma after "1078"
close the space between "D" and "N" so the text reads "D.N.J."
Line 5: delete "3rd" and insert "3d"
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk Deputy Clerk
Filed: April 3, 1998