green
Positive treatment
4.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2006 ·
…showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the sixth amendment.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Darin Underwood
See United States v. Fields, 408 F.3d 1356, 1360-61 (11th Cir.2005) (applying plain error review in holding that the fact that the defendant was sentenced to the bottom of the mandatory Guidelines range, without more, is insufficient to satisfy the third prong’s requirement that the defendant show a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence under an advisory guideline system), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 221 , 163 L.Ed.2d 193 (2005).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Kelvin Pickering
See United States v. Fields, 408 F.3d 1356, 1361 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 221 , 163 L.Ed.2d 193 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gilberto Serna Castro
See United States v. Fields, 408 F.3d 1356, 1361 (11th Cir.2005) (under plain-error review, holding that the fact that the defendant was sentenced to the bottom of the mandatory Guideline range, without more, is insufficient to satisfy the third prong’s requirement that the defendant show a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence under an advisory Guidelines system), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 221 , 163 L.Ed.2d 193 (2005)).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Lazaro Garcia
See United States v. Fields, 408 F.3d 1356, 1361 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 221 , — L.Ed.2d-(2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Brown
See, e.g., Anderson v. United States, 393 F.3d 749, 754 (8th Cir.) ("Counsel's failure to raise [a] novel argument does not render his performance constitutionally ineffective."), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 882 , 126 S.Ct. 221 , 163 L.Ed.2d 185 (2005); Haight v. Commonwealth, 41 S.W.3d 436, 448 (Ky.) ("while the failure to advance an established legal theory may result in ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland , the failure to advance a novel theory never will"), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 998 , 122 S.Ct. 471 , 151 L.Ed.2d 386 (2001), overruled on other grounds by Leonard v. Commonwealth, …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Serdar Kalaycioglu
We have held that, in the context of Booker error, the plain error test is satisfied only when the defendant can show that “there is a reasonable probability of a different result if the guidelines had been applied in an advisory instead of a binding fashion.” Id. (quotation omitted); see also United States v. Fields, 408 F.3d 1356, 1360-61 (11th Cir.) (explaining that a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range does not necessarily indicate that the district court would have sentenced the defendant outside of the Guidelines if the court considered the Guidelines as advisory), cert. …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Oscar Ronda
A sentence at the low end of the Guideline range “is not in and of itself sufficient to satisfy the third-prong burden.” Underwood, 446 F.3d at 1344 ; see also United States v. Fields, 408 F.3d 1356, 1360-61 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 221 , 163 L.Ed.2d 193 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Joseph Frank Cantu
We have held that, in the context of Booker error, the plain error test is satisfied only when the defendant can show that “ ‘there is a reasonable probability of a different result if the guidelines had been applied in *472 an advisory instead of a binding fashion.’ Id. (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1301 (11th Cir.), cert. denied - U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 2935 , 162 L.Ed.2d 866 (2005)); see also United States v. Fields, 408 F.3d 1356, 1360-61 (11th Cir.) (explaining that a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range does not necessarily indicate that the district cou…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
McGee
v.
Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
v.
Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
No. 05-5310.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 2005.
Published
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.