Thomas standard in West Virginia

1991The Thomas standard conforms to the performance and prejudice test of ineffective assistance of counsel applied by the U.S. Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and applies when effective assistance of counsel is challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding.

1991The Thomas standard conforms to the performance and prejudice test of ineffective assistance of counsel applied by the U.S. Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and applies when effective assistance of counsel is challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding.

1997In Sattler v. Bailey, 184 W.Va. 212 , 400 S.E.2d 220 (1990), this Court recognized that the limitations period in a statute of limitations is tolled when a wrongdoer does something to prevent discovery of the wrong.

1997In Sattler v. Bailey, 184 W.Va. 212 , 400 S.E.2d 220 (1990), this Court recognized that the limitations period in a statute of limitations is tolled when a wrongdoer does something to prevent discovery of the wrong.

1991Leach v. Hamilton, ___ W.Va. ___, 280 S.E.2d 62 (1980) where we said: We cannot envision a murder defense, however, that would not require introduction of all possible evidence toward reduction of a jury's view of the severity of defendant's acts.

1991Leach v. Hamilton, ___ W.Va. ___, 280 S.E.2d 62 (1980) where we said: We cannot envision a murder defense, however, that would not require introduction of all possible evidence toward reduction of a jury's view of the severity of defendant's acts.

1986For example, in Gibson v. Boles, 288 F.Supp. 472 (N.D.W.Va.1968), the district court, in rejecting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, stated: “The effectiveness of counsel is not determined by whether counsel obtained the ‘best deal’ for his client but whether he has performed his duties to represent his client in a way that does not shock the conscience of the court or produce a mockery of justice.” 288 F.Supp. at 476 .

1986For example, in Gibson v. Boles, 288 F.Supp. 472 (N.D.W.Va.1968), the district court, in rejecting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, stated: “The effectiveness of counsel is not determined by whether counsel obtained the ‘best deal’ for his client but whether he has performed his duties to represent his client in a way that does not shock the conscience of the court or produce a mockery of justice.” 288 F.Supp. at 476 .

1986The Thomas standard comports with the performance and prejudice test recently enunciated'by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 , reh’g denied, 467 U.S. 1267 , 104 S.Ct. 3562 , 82 L.Ed.2d 864 (1984).

1986The Thomas standard comports with the performance and prejudice test recently enunciated'by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 , reh’g denied, 467 U.S. 1267 , 104 S.Ct. 3562 , 82 L.Ed.2d 864 (1984).

1986The pre-Thomas test concerning ineffective assistance of counsel, applied in various federal courts, was described in the Thomas opinion: “counsel’s efforts must have been so inadequate as to render the trial a farce and a mockery of justice.” 157 W.Va. at 662 , 203 S.E.2d at 459 .

1986The pre-Thomas test concerning ineffective assistance of counsel, applied in various federal courts, was described in the Thomas opinion: “counsel’s efforts must have been so inadequate as to render the trial a farce and a mockery of justice.” 157 W.Va. at 662 , 203 S.E.2d at 459 .

1977In State v. Britton, __ W.Va. _, 203 S.E.2d 462 (1974), this Court discussed at length the impropriety of a prosecuting attorney counseling with a criminal defendant in the absence of the defendant’s own counsel as to aspects of the pending prosecution.