reasonably competent defense (Oklahoma) · Go Syfert
← Oklahoma issues

reasonably competent defense in Oklahoma

33 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2017 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oklahoma 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.

Followed or applied (7)

CaseFollowedCited
Cotton v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1984 · cited in 11 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1987–1996
2 sentences

1996We considered the application of the test in Pierce v. State, 786 P.2d 1255, 1266-67 (Okl.Cr.1990), and held: We have long held that allegation of incompetency of counsel will be judged by “whether counsel exercised the skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense attorney in light of his overall performance.” Fisher v. State, 736 P.2d 1003, 1011 (Okl.Cr.1987); Cotton v. State, 679 P.2d 1305, 1308 (Okl.Cr.1984).

1995We considered the application of the test in Pierce v. State, 786 P.2d 1255 (Okl.Cr.1990), and held: We have long held that allegation of incompetency of counsel will be judged by "whether counsel exercised the skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense attorney in light of his overall performance." Fisher v. State, 736 P.2d 1003, 1011 (Okl.Cr.1987); Cotton v. State, 679 P.2d 1305, 1308 (Okl.Cr.1984).

1111
Fisher v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1987 · cited in 8 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1990–1996
2 sentences

1996We considered the application of the test in Pierce v. State, 786 P.2d 1255, 1266-67 (Okl.Cr.1990), and held: We have long held that allegation of incompetency of counsel will be judged by “whether counsel exercised the skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense attorney in light of his overall performance.” Fisher v. State, 736 P.2d 1003, 1011 (Okl.Cr.1987); Cotton v. State, 679 P.2d 1305, 1308 (Okl.Cr.1984).

1995We considered the application of the test in Pierce v. State, 786 P.2d 1255 (Okl.Cr.1990), and held: We have long held that allegation of incompetency of counsel will be judged by "whether counsel exercised the skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense attorney in light of his overall performance." Fisher v. State, 736 P.2d 1003, 1011 (Okl.Cr.1987); Cotton v. State, 679 P.2d 1305, 1308 (Okl.Cr.1984).

88
Bryson v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1994 · cited in 6 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2000–2011
2 sentences

2011No particular set of detailed rules for counsel's conduct can satisfactorily take account of the variety of cireumstances faced by defense counsel or the range of legitimate decisions regarding how best to represent a criminal defendant."); Ryder, 2004 OK CR 2, ¶ 85 , 88 P.3d at 876 ("[this Court has stated the issue is whether counsel exercised the skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense attorney in light of his overall performance"), citing Bryson v. State, 876 P.2d 240, 264 (Okl.Or.1994). 1208 At the evidentiary hearing, trial counsel was not asked and did not specif

2008Bryson v. State, 1994 OK CR 32, ¶ 73 , 876 P.2d 240, 264 .

56
Pierce v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1990 · cited in 5 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1994–1996
2 sentences

1996We considered the application of the test in Pierce v. State, 786 P.2d 1255, 1266-67 (Okl.Cr.1990), and held: We have long held that allegation of incompetency of counsel will be judged by “whether counsel exercised the skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense attorney in light of his overall performance.” Fisher v. State, 736 P.2d 1003, 1011 (Okl.Cr.1987); Cotton v. State, 679 P.2d 1305, 1308 (Okl.Cr.1984).

1995We considered the application of the test in Pierce v. State, 786 P.2d 1255 (Okl.Cr.1990), and held: We have long held that allegation of incompetency of counsel will be judged by "whether counsel exercised the skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense attorney in light of his overall performance." Fisher v. State, 736 P.2d 1003, 1011 (Okl.Cr.1987); Cotton v. State, 679 P.2d 1305, 1308 (Okl.Cr.1984).

25
Malone v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 2013 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017Id., 2013 OK CR ¶ 15, 293 P.3d at 206-207. ¶160 Appellant first finds counsel ineffective for failing to file a motion in limine to exclude the decedent's alleged hearsay statements.

2017Id., 2013 OK CR ¶ 15, 293 P.3d at 206-207. ¶160 Appellant first finds counsel ineffective for failing to file a motion in limine to exclude the decedent's alleged hearsay statements.

12
Primeaux v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
1 sentence

2011No particular set of detailed rules for counsel's conduct can satisfactorily take account of the variety of cireumstances faced by defense counsel or the range of legitimate decisions regarding how best to represent a criminal defendant."); Ryder, 2004 OK CR 2, ¶ 85 , 88 P.3d at 876 ("[this Court has stated the issue is whether counsel exercised the skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense attorney in light of his overall performance"), citing Bryson v. State, 876 P.2d 240, 264 (Okl.Or.1994). 1208 At the evidentiary hearing, trial counsel was not asked and did not specif

11
Manning v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1981 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
1 sentence

1982The present test is whether defense counsel exercised “the skill, judgment, and diligence of a reasonably competent defense attorney.” Johnson v. State, supra at 1313; see also Manning v. State, 630 P.2d 327 (Okl.Cr.1981).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

CaseCitedYears
Strickland v. Washington green
scotus · 1984
2 sentences

2017Id., 2013 OK CR ¶ 15, 293 P.3d at 206-207. ¶160 Appellant first finds counsel ineffective for failing to file a motion in limine to exclude the decedent's alleged hearsay statements.

2017Id., 2013 OK CR ¶ 15, 293 P.3d at 206-207. ¶160 Appellant first finds counsel ineffective for failing to file a motion in limine to exclude the decedent's alleged hearsay statements.

52006–2017
Johnson v. State green
oklacrimapp · 1980
2 sentences

1985The issue is whether the accused was afforded reasonably competent assistance of counsel, i.e., whether counsel exercised the skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense attorney, Johnson v. State, 620 P.2d 1311 (Okl.Cr. 1981), assessed in light of counsel's overall performance.

1985The issue is whether the accused was afforded reasonably competent assistance of counsel, i.e., whether counsel exercised the skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense attorney, Johnson v. State, 620 P.2d 1311 (Okl.Cr. 1981), assessed in light of counsel’s overall performance.

51980–1985
Aziz v. Groose green
scotus · 1995
2 sentences

2004Bryson v. State, 876 P.2d 240, 264 (Okl.Cr.1994), ce rt. denied, 513 U.S. 1090 , 115 S.Ct. 752 , 130 L.Ed.2d 651 (1995). ¶ 86 As discussed above, trial counsel did have the psychological evaluation, finding Appellant not competent to stand trial, prior to trial.

2001Bryson v. State, 876 P.2d 240, 264 (Okl.Cr.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1090 , 115 S.Ct. 752 , 130 L.Ed.2d 651 (1995). ś 112 A review of the record shows counsel did not concede guilt during the first stage.

42000–2004
Weakley v. Security State Bank & Trust green
scotus · 1995
2 sentences

2004Bryson v. State, 876 P.2d 240, 264 (Okl.Cr.1994), ce rt. denied, 513 U.S. 1090 , 115 S.Ct. 752 , 130 L.Ed.2d 651 (1995). ¶ 86 As discussed above, trial counsel did have the psychological evaluation, finding Appellant not competent to stand trial, prior to trial.

2001Bryson v. State, 876 P.2d 240, 264 (Okl.Cr.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1090 , 115 S.Ct. 752 , 130 L.Ed.2d 651 (1995). ś 112 A review of the record shows counsel did not concede guilt during the first stage.

42000–2004
Okocha v. Cleveland Bar Ass'n green
scotus · 1995
2 sentences

2004Bryson v. State, 876 P.2d 240, 264 (Okl.Cr.1994), ce rt. denied, 513 U.S. 1090 , 115 S.Ct. 752 , 130 L.Ed.2d 651 (1995). ¶ 86 As discussed above, trial counsel did have the psychological evaluation, finding Appellant not competent to stand trial, prior to trial.

2001Bryson v. State, 876 P.2d 240, 264 (Okl.Cr.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1090 , 115 S.Ct. 752 , 130 L.Ed.2d 651 (1995). ś 112 A review of the record shows counsel did not concede guilt during the first stage.

32000–2004
Cephus Donald Dyer v. Richard Crisp green
ca10 · 1980
2 sentences

1982Dyer v. Crisp, 613 F.2d 275 (10th Cir. 1980).

1980For the most recent decision on competency of counsel, see Johnson v. State, Okl.Cr., 620 P.2d 1311 (1980), where this Court adopts the reasonably competent standard, following the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Dyer v. Crisp, 613 F.2d 275 (10th Cir. 1980).

31980–1982
Bland v. State green
oklacrimapp · 2000
2 sentences

2006Bland, 2000 OK CR 11, at ¶ 112 , 4 P.3d at 730-731 . ¶ 36 The Oklahoma rules of Professional Conduct govern attorney conduct in this state.

2006Bland, 2000 OK CR 11, at ¶ 112 , 4 P.3d at 730-731 . ¶ 36 The Oklahoma rules of Professional Conduct govern attorney conduct in this state.

22004–2006
Taylor v. State green
oklacrimapp · 1983
2 sentences

1985Taylor v. State, 659 P.2d 362 (Okl.Cr.1983).

1984The issue is whether the accused was afforded reasonably competent assistance of counsel, i.e., whether counsel exercised the skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense attorney, Johnson v. State, 620 P.2d 1311 (Okl.Cr.1980), assessed in light of counsel’s overall performance, Taylor v. State, 659 P.2d 362 (Okl.Cr.1983).

21984–1985
Mitchell v. State green
oklacrimapp · 2011
2 sentences

2013Mitchell, 2011 OK CR 26, ¶ 140 , 270 P.3d at 190 .

2013Mitchell, 2011 OK CR 26, ¶ 140 , 270 P.3d at 190 .

12013–2013
Ryder v. State green
oklacrimapp · 2004
1 sentence

2011No particular set of detailed rules for counsel's conduct can satisfactorily take account of the variety of cireumstances faced by defense counsel or the range of legitimate decisions regarding how best to represent a criminal defendant."); Ryder, 2004 OK CR 2, ¶ 85 , 88 P.3d at 876 ("[this Court has stated the issue is whether counsel exercised the skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense attorney in light of his overall performance"), citing Bryson v. State, 876 P.2d 240, 264 (Okl.Or.1994). 1208 At the evidentiary hearing, trial counsel was not asked and did not specif

12011–2011
Jackson v. State green
oklacrimapp · 2001
2 sentences

2004Bland, 2000 OK CR 11 , ถ 112, 4 P.3d at 731 . ถ 51 Appellant relies on Jackson v. State, 2001 OK CR 37 , ถ 15, 41 P.3d 395, 398-399 , where this Court reiterated its position that a concession of guilt does not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel, per se.

2004Bland, 2000 OK CR 11 , ถ 112, 4 P.3d at 731 . ถ 51 Appellant relies on Jackson v. State, 2001 OK CR 37 , ถ 15, 41 P.3d 395, 398-399 , where this Court reiterated its position that a concession of guilt does not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel, per se.

12004–2004

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.13 (20) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.12 (16) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.7 (14) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.10 (6) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.8 (6) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 20, § 3001.1 (5) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2803 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2804 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 645 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 711 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801 (3) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.11 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

OK 33 (1980–2017) NM 33 (1981–2026) CA 6 (1980–2015) WI 5 (2020–2024) IN 4 (2007–2017) IA 3 (2016–2024) AZ 3 (2017–2025) MN 3 (2015–2016) OR 2 (2014–2020) WA 2 (2004–2004) MI 2 (2018–2018) KS 2 (1980–2007)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check