26 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Williams v. State, 783 So.2d 108, 133 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000) (holding that a finding of no plain error on direct appeal precludes a finding of prejudice under Strickland ). 2004Slaton v. State, 902 So.2d 102, 111 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191, 206-07 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); Dobyne v. State, 805 So.2d 733, 744 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), aff' d, 805 So.2d 763 (Ala.2001); Williams v. State, 783 So.2d 108, 128, 133 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). | 3 | 3 |
Ex Parte Taylorgreen2 sentences2010Therefore, she was approximately 17 years old at the time of the crime." Scott cites Ex parte Taylor , 10 So.3d 1075 (Ala.2005), for the proposition that a finding of no plain error as to an issue on direct appeal does not automatically foreclose the possibility of prejudice under Strickland . 2010Therefore, she was approximately 17 years old at the time of the crime." Scott cites Ex parte Taylor , 10 So.3d 1075 (Ala.2005), for the proposition that a finding of no plain error as to an issue on direct appeal does not automatically foreclose the possibility of prejudice under Strickland . | 2 | 10 |
Thomas v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Further, although we recognize that a finding of no plain error does not as a matter of law preclude a petitioner from establishing prejudice under Strickland , see Ex parte Taylor , [Ms. 1040186, Sept. 30, 2005] — So.2d ___ (Ala. 2005), we note that the Alabama Supreme Court, in Ex parte Taylor , cited with approval its opinion in Ex parte Thomas , 766 So.2d 975 (Ala. 2000): "In Thomas v. State , 766 So.2d 860 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998), the Court of Criminal Appeals first stated its position that a finding of no plain error on direct appeal precluded a finding of prejudice under Strickland in a su 2005In Thomas v. State, 766 So.2d 860 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), the Court of Criminal Appeals first stated its position that a finding of no plain error on direct appeal precluded a finding of prejudice under Strickland in a subsequent postconviction proceeding. | 2 | 4 |
Fortenberry v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Indeed, here the circuit court did not rely solely on our finding of no plain error on direct appeal but considered it as “one factor.” “[A finding of no plain error] is one factor to be assessed when determining whether counsel’s performance was ineffective....” See Fortenberry v. State, 659 So.2d 194, 200 (Ala.Crim.App.1994). 1997"A finding of no plain error is one factor to consider when assessing the performance of [appellate] counsel." Fortenberry , 659 So.2d at 200 , quoting Hallford , 629 So.2d at 10 . | 2 | 3 |
Lee v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Lee v. State, 44 So.3d 1145, 1163 (Ala.Crim. 2015See Lee v. State, 44 So.3d 1145, 1163 (Ala.Crim.App.2009). | 2 | 2 |
Grayson v. Stategreen2 sentences1999Moreover, we have searched the record on direct appeal for "plain error" that may have adversely affected Boyd's substantial rights and have found none. "`A finding of no plain error is one factor to consider when assessing the performance of trial counsel.'" Grayson v. State, 675 So.2d 516, 524 (Ala.Cr.App.1995) (quoting Hallford v. State, 548 So.2d 526 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.)). 1999Moreover, we have searched the record on direct appeal for "plain error" that may have adversely affected Boyd's substantial rights and found none. "`A finding of no plain error is one factor to consider when assessing the performance of trial counsel.'" Grayson v. *390 State, 675 So.2d 516, 524 (Ala.Cr.App.1995) (quoting Hallford v. State, 548 So.2d 526 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.1989)). | 2 | 2 |
Hallford v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Rather, we must return to our original analysis, as stated in Hallford v. State, 629 So.2d 6, 10 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), and its progeny, that a finding of no plain error on direct appeal is a, factor to consider in the evaluation of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel arising out of that substantive claim. 2004Rather, we must return to our original analysis, as stated in Hallford v. State, 629 So.2d 6, 10 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), and its progeny, that a finding of no plain error on direct appeal is a factor to consider in the evaluation of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel arising out of that substantive claim. | 1 | 5 |
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2011However, the cases relied on by the circuit court —Woods v. State, 957 So.2d 492 (Ala.Crim.App.2004), and Taylor v. State, 10 So.3d 1037 (Ala.Crim.App.2004)—were subsequently overruled and reversed, respectively, by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Taylor, 10 So.3d 1075 (Ala.2005). 2009The Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Taylor reversed this Court’s judgment in Taylor v. State, 10 So.3d 1037 (Ala.Crim.App.2004), in part, holding: “Although it may be the rare case in which the application of the plain-error test and the prejudice prong of the Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) ] test will result in different outcomes, a determination on direct appeal that there has been no plain error does not automatically foreclose a determination of the existence of the prejudice required under Strickland to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” 10 So.3d at 1 | 1 | 4 |
Bearden v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Bearden v. State, 825 So.2d 868, 872 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) (holding that ‘[c]ounsel could not be ineffective for failing to raise a baseless objection.’).” (R. 66.) In his brief, Jackson asserts that the court’s order was erroneous in this regard because, he says, a finding of no plain error on direct appeal “does not automatically foreclose a determination of the existence of prejudice required under Strickland to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” (Jackson’s brief, at 53.) He cites Ex parte Taylor, 10 So.3d 1075 (Ala.2005), in support of this claim. | 1 | 1 |
Boyd v. Stategreen2 sentences2004E.g., Boyd v. State, 746 So.2d 364, 389-90 (Ala.Crim.App.1999); Grayson v. State, 676 So.2d 516, 524 (Ala.Crim.App.1995); Fortenberry v. State, 659 So.2d 194, 200 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); Hallford v. State, 629 So.2d 6, 10 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). 2004E.g., Boyd v. State, 746 So.2d 364, 389-90 (Ala.Crim.App.1999); Grayson v. State, 675 So.2d 516, 524 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995); Fortenberry v. State, 659 So.2d 194, 200 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); Hallford v. State, 629 So.2d 6, 10 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Dobyne v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Slaton v. State, 902 So.2d 102, 111 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191, 206-07 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); Dobyne v. State, 805 So.2d 733, 744 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), aff' d, 805 So.2d 763 (Ala.2001); Williams v. State, 783 So.2d 108, 128, 133 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). 2004Slaton v. State, 902 So.2d 102, 111 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191, 206-07 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); Dobyne v. State, 805 So.2d 733, 744 (Ala. Crim.App.2000), aff'd, 805 So.2d 763 (Ala. 2001); Williams v. State, 783 So.2d 108, 128, 133 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Slaton v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Slaton v. State, 902 So.2d 102, 111 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191, 206-07 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); Dobyne v. State, 805 So.2d 733, 744 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), aff' d, 805 So.2d 763 (Ala.2001); Williams v. State, 783 So.2d 108, 128, 133 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). 2004Slaton v. State, 902 So.2d 102, 111 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191, 206-07 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); Dobyne v. State, 805 So.2d 733, 744 (Ala. Crim.App.2000), aff'd, 805 So.2d 763 (Ala. 2001); Williams v. State, 783 So.2d 108, 128, 133 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
McGahee v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Slaton v. State, 902 So.2d 102, 111 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191, 206-07 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); Dobyne v. State, 805 So.2d 733, 744 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), aff' d, 805 So.2d 763 (Ala.2001); Williams v. State, 783 So.2d 108, 128, 133 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). 2004Slaton v. State, 902 So.2d 102, 111 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191, 206-07 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); Dobyne v. State, 805 So.2d 733, 744 (Ala. Crim.App.2000), aff'd, 805 So.2d 763 (Ala. 2001); Williams v. State, 783 So.2d 108, 128, 133 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2009In Williams we held that a finding of no plain error on direct appeal precluded a finding of prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 2009In Williams we held that a finding of no plain error on direct appeal precluded a finding of prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). | 7 | 2004–2009 |
Ex Parte Thomas
green
2 sentences2007Further, although we recognize that a finding of no plain error does not as a matter of law preclude a petitioner from establishing prejudice under Strickland , see Ex parte Taylor , [Ms. 1040186, Sept. 30, 2005] — So.2d ___ (Ala. 2005), we note that the Alabama Supreme Court, in Ex parte Taylor , cited with approval its opinion in Ex parte Thomas , 766 So.2d 975 (Ala. 2000): "In Thomas v. State , 766 So.2d 860 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998), the Court of Criminal Appeals first stated its position that a finding of no plain error on direct appeal precluded a finding of prejudice under Strickland in a su 2007In Ex parte Thomas , 766 So.2d 975 (Ala. 2000), this Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, but it did not affirm that specific holding. | 3 | 2004–2007 |
Scheuing v. State
green
2 sentences2024If counsel had filed the motion, the Court would have granted it, and [he] would not have faced a trial, convictions, or a death sentence." (C. 842.) The circuit court dismissed this claim, finding that "Scheuing raised the issue underlying this ineffectiveness claim on direct appeal, and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that 'Scheuing has failed to establish that a violation of his right to a speedy trial occurred, much less that the circuit court committed plain error by failing to notice one.' " (C. 1221 (quoting Scheuing, 161 So. 3d at 291 ).) The circuit court further found that 2024Given the dearth of information about [his] horrible childhood and the resulting mental-health problems that ensued, there is a reasonable likelihood that a detached, neutral decisionmaker would not have convicted him of capital murder or sentenced him to death." (C. 851.) The circuit court dismissed this claim because "he raised this underlying claim on direct appeal, and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that 'the record demonstrates that the prosecutor's references to representing and speaking for the victims were limited and brief' "; thus, this Court held " 'that the prosecutor's | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Woods v. State
green
1 sentence2011However, the cases relied on by the circuit court —Woods v. State, 957 So.2d 492 (Ala.Crim.App.2004), and Taylor v. State, 10 So.3d 1037 (Ala.Crim.App.2004)—were subsequently overruled and reversed, respectively, by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Taylor, 10 So.3d 1075 (Ala.2005). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Ex Parte Harris
green
1 sentence2006We granted Harris's petition for the writ of certiorari to consider her claim that "several of her ineffective-assistance-of-counsel arguments were not precluded by findings of no plain error on direct appeal." Ex parte Harris , 947 So.2d 1139 , 1142 (Ala. 2005). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Love
green
2 sentences2005As the Illinois Court of Appeals stated in People v. Love, 327 Ill.App.3d 313 , 261 Ill.Dec. 580 , 763 N.E.2d 829 (2002): "To satisfy the prejudice prong [of Strickland , ], defendant must show his counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. 2005As the Illinois Court of Appeals stated in People v. Love, 327 Ill.App.3d 313 , 261 Ill.Dec. 580 , 763 N.E.2d 829 (2002): "To satisfy the prejudice prong [of Strickland , ], defendant must show his counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Clark
green
2 sentences2004In Williams v. State, supra, when we stated that a finding of no plain error precluded a finding of prejudice, we relied on a Missouri case, State v. Clark, 913 S.W.2d 399 (Mo.Ct.App.1996). 2004In Williams v. State, supra , when we stated that a finding of no plain error precluded a finding of prejudice, we relied on a Missouri case, State v. Clark, 913 S.W.2d 399 (Mo.Ct.App.1996). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Ex Parte Dobyne
green
2 sentences2004Slaton v. State, 902 So.2d 102, 111 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191, 206-07 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); Dobyne v. State, 805 So.2d 733, 744 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), aff' d, 805 So.2d 763 (Ala.2001); Williams v. State, 783 So.2d 108, 128, 133 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). 2004Slaton v. State, 902 So.2d 102, 111 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191, 206-07 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); Dobyne v. State, 805 So.2d 733, 744 (Ala. Crim.App.2000), aff'd, 805 So.2d 763 (Ala. 2001); Williams v. State, 783 So.2d 108, 128, 133 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Flowers v. State
green
1 sentence2003"A finding of no plain error precludes a finding of prejudice under the Strickland test." Flowers v. State , 799 So.2d 966 , 994 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999) (opinion on return to remand). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Hallford v. State
green
2 sentences1999Moreover, we have searched the record on direct appeal for "plain error" that may have adversely affected Boyd's substantial rights and have found none. "`A finding of no plain error is one factor to consider when assessing the performance of trial counsel.'" Grayson v. State, 675 So.2d 516, 524 (Ala.Cr.App.1995) (quoting Hallford v. State, 548 So.2d 526 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.)). 1999Moreover, we have searched the record on direct appeal for "plain error" that may have adversely affected Boyd's substantial rights and found none. "`A finding of no plain error is one factor to consider when assessing the performance of trial counsel.'" Grayson v. *390 State, 675 So.2d 516, 524 (Ala.Cr.App.1995) (quoting Hallford v. State, 548 So.2d 526 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.1989)). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Hinton v. State
green
2 sentences1999Moreover, we have searched the record on direct appeal for "plain error" that may have adversely affected Boyd's substantial rights and have found none. "`A finding of no plain error is one factor to consider when assessing the performance of trial counsel.'" Grayson v. State, 675 So.2d 516, 524 (Ala.Cr.App.1995) (quoting Hallford v. State, 548 So.2d 526 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.)). 1999Moreover, we have searched the record on direct appeal for "plain error" that may have adversely affected Boyd's substantial rights and found none. "`A finding of no plain error is one factor to consider when assessing the performance of trial counsel.'" Grayson v. *390 State, 675 So.2d 516, 524 (Ala.Cr.App.1995) (quoting Hallford v. State, 548 So.2d 526 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.1989)). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.