Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
37 California opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2025 17 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2025(See Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 697 [“The object of an ineffectiveness claim is not to grade counsel’s performance”].) Before sentencing defendant, the trial court stated in part: “The Court generally does not make long speeches at this stage of the proceedings, but I do feel it incumbent upon the Court to make the following observations. [¶] These killings were among the most disturbing, violent, and heinous crimes I think that can be committed.” The court noted several aspects of the murders, including the manner in which they were committed and their impact on members of 2024A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694 (Strickland).) “A defendant must prove prejudice 11 that is a ‘ “demonstrable reality,” not simply speculation.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1223, 1241 .) “The object of an ineffectiveness claim is not to grade counsel’s performance. | 10 | 32 |
In Re Coxgreen2 sentences2016He doesn’t match the initial description of these individuals.” “The object of an ineffectiveness claim is not to grade counsel’s performance.” (In re Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 974, 1019 .) To support a reversal of defendant’s conviction for ineffective assistance of counsel, “the record must demonstrate ‘a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. 2013(In re 10 Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 974, 1019-1020 .) “The object of an ineffectiveness claim is not to grade counsel’s performance. | 3 | 16 |
In re Crewgreen2 sentences2024If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.” (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 697 ; People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1101 ; In re Crew (2011) 52 Cal.4th 126, 150 [“[i]f a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be determined on 10 the ground of lack of prejudice, a court need not decide whether counsel’s performance was deficient”].) Furthermore, an appellate counsel does not commit ineffective assistance by filing a Wende/Delgadillo brief si 2024If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.” 5 (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 697 ; see also In re Crew (2011) 52 Cal.4th 126, 150 .) In light of our conclusion that the trial court correctly determined that Francis is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law, Francis has failed to demonstrate any prejudice based upon his claim of defective representation by appellate counsel. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Ledesmagreen2 sentences2024(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694 ; People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 746 ; People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216, 218 .) “[I]f the record on appeal fails to show why counsel acted or failed to act in the instance asserted to be ineffective, unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation, the claim must be rejected on appeal.” (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1068-1069 ; accord, People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 936 .) “The object of an ineffectiveness claim is not to g 2023(Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 694 ; People v. Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 217–218.) “The object of an ineffectiveness claim is not to grade trial counsel’s performance. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Wilsongreen1 sentence2024(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694 ; People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 746 ; People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216, 218 .) “[I]f the record on appeal fails to show why counsel acted or failed to act in the instance asserted to be ineffective, unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation, the claim must be rejected on appeal.” (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1068-1069 ; accord, People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 936 .) “The object of an ineffectiveness claim is not to g | 1 | 1 |
Harrington v. Richtergreen1 sentence2022If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, . . . that course should be followed.” (Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 697 .) To show prejudice, defendant must show a reasonable probability that he would have received a more favorable result had counsel’s performance not been deficient. ( Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 693-694; Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 217-218.) “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (Strickland, at p. 694; accord, Ledesma, at p. 218.) “The likelihood of | 1 | 1 |
Santa Clara County Department of Family & Children's Services v. A.P.green1 sentence2022If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, . . . that course should be followed.” (Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 697 .) To show prejudice, defendant must show a reasonable probability that he would have received a more favorable result had counsel’s performance not been deficient. ( Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 693-694; Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 217-218.) “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (Strickland, at p. 694; accord, Ledesma, at p. 218.) “The likelihood of | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cunninghamgreen1 sentence2016(People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211 .) “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, appellant must prove two elements: (1) trial counsel’s deficient performance and (2) prejudice as a result of that performance.” (People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1189 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).) Prejudice is established if “there is a reasonable probability that defendant would have obtained a more favorable result absent counsel’s shortcomings.” (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1003 (Cunningham).) “A reasonable p | 1 | 1 |
In Re Fieldsgreen1 sentence2016If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.” (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 697 ; see also In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1079 .) A defendant claiming ineffective assistance “ ‘must establish “prejudice as a ‘demonstrable reality,’ not simply speculation as to the effect of the errors or omissions of counsel.” ’ ” (In re Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 974, 1016 .) Given the intrinsic difficulties in reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the | 1 | 1 |
Wong v. Belmontesgreen2 sentences2014If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.”].) To determine prejudice from failure to introduce additional evidence, “it is necessary to consider all the relevant evidence that the [trier of fact] would have had before it if [counsel] had pursued the different path — not just the mitigation evidence [counsel] could have presented, but also the [damaging] evidence that almost certainly would have come in with it.” (Wong v. Belmontes (2009) 558 U.S. 15, 19 [ 175 L.Ed.2d 32 2014If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.”].) To determine prejudice from failure to introduce additional evidence, “it is necessary to consider all the relevant evidence that the [trier of fact] would have had before it if [counsel] had pursued the different path — not just the mitigation evidence [counsel] could have presented, but also the [damaging] evidence that almost certainly would have come in with it.” (Wong v. Belmontes (2009) 558 U.S. 15, 19 [ 175 L.Ed.2d 32 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Fairbank
green
2 sentences2024If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice . . . that course should be followed.” (Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 697 .) In establishing ineffective assistance of counsel, “[a] defendant must prove prejudice that is a ‘ “demonstrable reality” not simply speculation.’ [Citation.] Prejudice requires ‘a reasonable probability that a more favorable outcome would have resulted . . . , i.e., a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” (People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1223, 1241 .) Therefore, our inquiry is whet 2024A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694 (Strickland).) “A defendant must prove prejudice 11 that is a ‘ “demonstrable reality,” not simply speculation.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1223, 1241 .) “The object of an ineffectiveness claim is not to grade counsel’s performance. | 3 | 2022–2024 |
People v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2024If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.” (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 697 ; People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1101 ; In re Crew (2011) 52 Cal.4th 126, 150 [“[i]f a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be determined on 10 the ground of lack of prejudice, a court need not decide whether counsel’s performance was deficient”].) Furthermore, an appellate counsel does not commit ineffective assistance by filing a Wende/Delgadillo brief si 2023If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.” (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 697 ; People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1101 ; In re Crew (2011) 52 Cal.4th 126, 150 [“[i]f a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be determined on the ground of lack of prejudice, a court need not decide whether counsel’s performance was deficient”].) We therefore find no merit to Camarillo’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the filing of a no- | 2 | 2023–2024 |
People v. Carrasco
green
2 sentences2023If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice … that course should be followed.” (In re Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 974 , 1019–1020; People v. Carrasco (2014) 59 Cal.4th 924, 982 .) B. 2022If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice … that course should be followed.” (In re Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 974 , 1019- 1020; People v. Carrasco (2014) 59 Cal.4th 924, 982 .) We follow that course here. | 2 | 2022–2023 |
People v. Delgadillo
green
1 sentence2024If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.” (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 697 ; People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1101 ; In re Crew (2011) 52 Cal.4th 126, 150 [“[i]f a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be determined on 10 the ground of lack of prejudice, a court need not decide whether counsel’s performance was deficient”].) Furthermore, an appellate counsel does not commit ineffective assistance by filing a Wende/Delgadillo brief si | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Kelly
green
1 sentence2024If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.” (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 697 ; People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1101 ; In re Crew (2011) 52 Cal.4th 126, 150 [“[i]f a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be determined on 10 the ground of lack of prejudice, a court need not decide whether counsel’s performance was deficient”].) Furthermore, an appellate counsel does not commit ineffective assistance by filing a Wende/Delgadillo brief si | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Kraft
green
1 sentence2024(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694 ; People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 746 ; People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216, 218 .) “[I]f the record on appeal fails to show why counsel acted or failed to act in the instance asserted to be ineffective, unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation, the claim must be rejected on appeal.” (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1068-1069 ; accord, People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 936 .) “The object of an ineffectiveness claim is not to g | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Ledesma
green
1 sentence2024(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694 ; People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 746 ; People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216, 218 .) “[I]f the record on appeal fails to show why counsel acted or failed to act in the instance asserted to be ineffective, unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation, the claim must be rejected on appeal.” (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1068-1069 ; accord, People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 936 .) “The object of an ineffectiveness claim is not to g | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Rogers
green
2 sentences2022If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, . . . that course should be followed.” (Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 697 .) To show prejudice, defendant must show a reasonable probability that he would have received a more favorable result had counsel’s performance not been deficient. ( Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 693-694; Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 217-218.) “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (Strickland, at p. 694; accord, Ledesma, at p. 218.) “The likelihood of 2022If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, . . . that course should be followed.” (Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 697 .) To show prejudice, defendant must show a reasonable probability that he would have received a more favorable result had counsel’s performance not been deficient. ( Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 693-694; Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 217-218.) “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (Strickland, at p. 694; accord, Ledesma, at p. 218.) “The likelihood of | 1 | 2022–2022 |
The People v. Jacobs
green
1 sentence2022If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, . . . that course should be followed.” (Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 697 .) To show prejudice, defendant must show a reasonable probability that he would have received a more favorable result had counsel’s performance not been deficient. ( Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 693-694; Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 217-218.) “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (Strickland, at p. 694; accord, Ledesma, at p. 218.) “The likelihood of | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Bolin
green
1 sentence2016A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’” (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 333 ; Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 694 .) Finally, defendant complains trial counsel failed to investigate the allegation Franks’ and Buckley’s in-court identification of him was tainted by the fact they were observed in the courtroom together gesturing in his direction. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Lucas
green
1 sentence2016If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.” (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 697 ; see also In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1079 .) A defendant claiming ineffective assistance “ ‘must establish “prejudice as a ‘demonstrable reality,’ not simply speculation as to the effect of the errors or omissions of counsel.” ’ ” (In re Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 974, 1016 .) Given the intrinsic difficulties in reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Vines
green
1 sentence2016If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.” (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 697 ; see also In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1079 .) A defendant claiming ineffective assistance “ ‘must establish “prejudice as a ‘demonstrable reality,’ not simply speculation as to the effect of the errors or omissions of counsel.” ’ ” (In re Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 974, 1016 .) Given the intrinsic difficulties in reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Carter
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211 .) “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, appellant must prove two elements: (1) trial counsel’s deficient performance and (2) prejudice as a result of that performance.” (People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1189 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).) Prejudice is established if “there is a reasonable probability that defendant would have obtained a more favorable result absent counsel’s shortcomings.” (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1003 (Cunningham).) “A reasonable p | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Martinez
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211 .) “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, appellant must prove two elements: (1) trial counsel’s deficient performance and (2) prejudice as a result of that performance.” (People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1189 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).) Prejudice is established if “there is a reasonable probability that defendant would have obtained a more favorable result absent counsel’s shortcomings.” (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1003 (Cunningham).) “A reasonable p | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Ray
green
1 sentence2014(Ray, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 349 .) The object of an ineffectiveness claim is not to grade counsel’s performance. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Lockhart v. Fretwell
green
2 sentences1996He didn't go into four separate homes and slaughter people inside." [29] Juan Corona was a serial killer who was convicted on 25 counts of first degree murder for hacking and stabbing to death a total of 25 migrant farmworkers over a period of 4 months. ( People v. Corona (1978) 80 Cal. App.3d 684 [ 145 Cal. Rptr. 894 ].) [30] I agree with the concurring opinion herein of Justice Arabian that the recent decision of the high court in Lockhart v. Fretwell (1993) 506 U.S. 364 [ 122 L.Ed.2d 180 , 113 S.Ct. 838 ], is distinguishable on its facts and has no bearing on the resolution of this case. [3 1996He didn't go into four separate homes and slaughter people inside." [29] Juan Corona was a serial killer who was convicted on 25 counts of first degree murder for hacking and stabbing to death a total of 25 migrant farmworkers over a period of 4 months. ( People v. Corona (1978) 80 Cal. App.3d 684 [ 145 Cal. Rptr. 894 ].) [30] I agree with the concurring opinion herein of Justice Arabian that the recent decision of the high court in Lockhart v. Fretwell (1993) 506 U.S. 364 [ 122 L.Ed.2d 180 , 113 S.Ct. 838 ], is distinguishable on its facts and has no bearing on the resolution of this case. [3 | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Corona
green
2 sentences1996He didn't go into four separate homes and slaughter people inside." [29] Juan Corona was a serial killer who was convicted on 25 counts of first degree murder for hacking and stabbing to death a total of 25 migrant farmworkers over a period of 4 months. ( People v. Corona (1978) 80 Cal. App.3d 684 [ 145 Cal. Rptr. 894 ].) [30] I agree with the concurring opinion herein of Justice Arabian that the recent decision of the high court in Lockhart v. Fretwell (1993) 506 U.S. 364 [ 122 L.Ed.2d 180 , 113 S.Ct. 838 ], is distinguishable on its facts and has no bearing on the resolution of this case. [3 1996He didn't go into four separate homes and slaughter people inside." [29] Juan Corona was a serial killer who was convicted on 25 counts of first degree murder for hacking and stabbing to death a total of 25 migrant farmworkers over a period of 4 months. ( People v. Corona (1978) 80 Cal. App.3d 684 [ 145 Cal. Rptr. 894 ].) [30] I agree with the concurring opinion herein of Justice Arabian that the recent decision of the high court in Lockhart v. Fretwell (1993) 506 U.S. 364 [ 122 L.Ed.2d 180 , 113 S.Ct. 838 ], is distinguishable on its facts and has no bearing on the resolution of this case. [3 | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.