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.
20 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2025 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. McFarlandgreen2 sentences2017No. 73703-1-1/4 reasonable, this court should neither "interfere with the constitutionally protected independence of counsel [nor] restrict the wide latitude counsel must have in making tactical decisions."7 Thus, this court conducts this inquiry "from counsel's perspective at the time" of trial and must strongly presume that counsel's conduct was reasonably effective.8 The defendant can overcome that presumption by showing "there is no conceivable legitimate tactic explaining counsel's performance."9 But the defendant must show this or any other deficiency based on the record established in t 2017No. 73703-1-1/4 reasonable, this court should neither "interfere with the constitutionally protected independence of counsel [nor] restrict the wide latitude counsel must have in making tactical decisions."7 Thus, this court conducts this inquiry "from counsel's perspective at the time" of trial and must strongly presume that counsel's conduct was reasonably effective.8 The defendant can overcome that presumption by showing "there is no conceivable legitimate tactic explaining counsel's performance."9 But the defendant must show this or any other deficiency based on the record established in t | 1 | 3 |
State v. Estesgreen2 sentences2021A defendant can overcome the presumption of effective representation if the defendant proves that counsel failed to conduct research that “falls below an objective standard of reasonableness where the matter is at the heart of the case.” Estes, 188 Wn.2d at 460. 2021“A defendant can overcome the presumption of effective representation by demonstrating ‘that counsel failed to conduct appropriate investigations.’” State v. Estes, 188 Wn.2d 450 , 462-63, 395 P.3d 1045 (2017) (quoting State v. Thomas, 109 Wn.2d 222, 230 , 743 P.2d 816 (1987)). | 1 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2017He must first show that counsel's performance was unreasonably ineffective and, second, that such ineffectiveness prejudiced the results of his case.25 Because he must meet both elements, we need not address both if either is found wanting.26 The defendant shows that his counsel's representation "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" based on the relevant circumstances and the "prevailing professional norms."27 So long as the representation was reasonable, we neither "interfere with the constitutionally protected independence of counsel [nor] restrict the wide latitude counsel mu 2017He must first show that counsel's performance was unreasonably ineffective and, second, that such ineffectiveness prejudiced the results of his case.25 Because he must meet both elements, we need not address both if either is found wanting.26 The defendant shows that his counsel's representation "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" based on the relevant circumstances and the "prevailing professional norms."27 So long as the representation was reasonable, we neither "interfere with the constitutionally protected independence of counsel [nor] restrict the wide latitude counsel mu | 1 | 2 |
State v. Carsongreen2 sentences2017No. 73703-1-1/4 reasonable, this court should neither "interfere with the constitutionally protected independence of counsel [nor] restrict the wide latitude counsel must have in making tactical decisions."7 Thus, this court conducts this inquiry "from counsel's perspective at the time" of trial and must strongly presume that counsel's conduct was reasonably effective.8 The defendant can overcome that presumption by showing "there is no conceivable legitimate tactic explaining counsel's performance."9 But the defendant must show this or any other deficiency based on the record established in t 2017No. 73703-1-1/4 reasonable, this court should neither "interfere with the constitutionally protected independence of counsel [nor] restrict the wide latitude counsel must have in making tactical decisions."7 Thus, this court conducts this inquiry "from counsel's perspective at the time" of trial and must strongly presume that counsel's conduct was reasonably effective.8 The defendant can overcome that presumption by showing "there is no conceivable legitimate tactic explaining counsel's performance."9 But the defendant must show this or any other deficiency based on the record established in t | 1 | 1 |
Harrington v. Richtergreen2 sentences2017No. 73703-1-1/4 reasonable, this court should neither "interfere with the constitutionally protected independence of counsel [nor] restrict the wide latitude counsel must have in making tactical decisions."7 Thus, this court conducts this inquiry "from counsel's perspective at the time" of trial and must strongly presume that counsel's conduct was reasonably effective.8 The defendant can overcome that presumption by showing "there is no conceivable legitimate tactic explaining counsel's performance."9 But the defendant must show this or any other deficiency based on the record established in t 2017No. 73703-1-1/4 reasonable, this court should neither "interfere with the constitutionally protected independence of counsel [nor] restrict the wide latitude counsel must have in making tactical decisions."7 Thus, this court conducts this inquiry "from counsel's perspective at the time" of trial and must strongly presume that counsel's conduct was reasonably effective.8 The defendant can overcome that presumption by showing "there is no conceivable legitimate tactic explaining counsel's performance."9 But the defendant must show this or any other deficiency based on the record established in t | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lordred2 sentences2006The defendant may also meet this burden by demonstrating "the absence of legitimate strategic or tactical reasons supporting the challenged conduct by counsel." McFarland, 127 Wash.2d at 336 , 899 P.2d 1251 ; see also State v. Lord, 117 Wash.2d 829, 883 , 822 P.2d 177 (1991); State v. Adams, 91 Wash.2d 86, 90 , 586 P.2d 1168 (1978). ¶ 23 The State contends that the Court of Appeals erred in finding deficient performance under our decisions in In re Personal Restraint of Jeffries, 110 Wash.2d 326 , 752 P.2d 1338 (1988) and State v. Benn, 120 Wash.2d 631, 663-65 , 845 P.2d 289 (1993). 2006The defendant may also meet this burden by demonstrating "the absence of legitimate strategic or tactical reasons supporting the challenged conduct by counsel." McFarland, 127 Wash.2d at 336 , 899 P.2d 1251 ; see also State v. Lord, 117 Wash.2d 829, 883 , 822 P.2d 177 (1991); State v. Adams, 91 Wash.2d 86, 90 , 586 P.2d 1168 (1978). ¶ 23 The State contends that the Court of Appeals erred in finding deficient performance under our decisions in In re Personal Restraint of Jeffries, 110 Wash.2d 326 , 752 P.2d 1338 (1988) and State v. Benn, 120 Wash.2d 631, 663-65 , 845 P.2d 289 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vazquezgreen1 sentence1994Some appellate courts hold that a defendant can overcome the privilege by showing that the informant is a material witness as to guilt or innocence, e.g., Casal, 103 Wn.2d at 816 ; State v. Redd, 51 Wn. App. 597, 606 , 754 P.2d 1041 , review denied, 111 Wn.2d 1008 (1988), or a material witness relevant and helpful to the defense, e.g, Vazquez, 66 Wn. App. at 581, 583-84 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences2025“A defendant can overcome this presumption by showing that counsel failed to adequately investigate or prepare for trial.” Id. 2025Restraint of Quintero, 29 Wn. App. 2d 254 , 286, 541 P.3d 1007 (quoting State v. Davis, 174 Wn. App. 623, 639 , 300 P.3d 465 (2013)), review denied, 3 Wn.3d 1018 (2024). “‘A defendant can overcome this presumption by showing that counsel failed to adequately investigate or prepare for trial.’” Id. (quoting Davis, 174 Wn. App. at 639 ). | 7 | 2018–2025 |
State v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2021“A defendant can overcome the presumption of effective representation by demonstrating ‘that counsel failed to conduct appropriate investigations.’” State v. Estes, 188 Wn.2d 450 , 462-63, 395 P.3d 1045 (2017) (quoting State v. Thomas, 109 Wn.2d 222, 230 , 743 P.2d 816 (1987)). 2021“A defendant can overcome the presumption of effective representation by demonstrating ‘that counsel failed to conduct appropriate investigations.’” State v. Estes, 188 Wn.2d 450 , 462-63, 395 P.3d 1045 (2017) (quoting State v. Thomas, 109 Wn.2d 222, 230 , 743 P.2d 816 (1987)). | 4 | 2006–2021 |
State v. Jury
green
2 sentences2017A defendant can overcome the presumption of effective representation by demonstrating "that counsel failed to conduct appropriate investigations." State v. Thomas, 109 Wn.2d 222,230 , 743 P.2d 816 (1987) (citing State v. Jury, 19 Wn. 2006A defendant can overcome the presumption of effective representation by demonstrating “that counsel failed to conduct appropriate investigations.” Thomas, 109 Wn.2d at 230 (citing State v. Jury, 19 Wn. | 3 | 2006–2017 |
State v. Lopez
green
2 sentences2015A defendant can overcome the presumption that each conviction counts separately for offender score purposes by establishing that two or more convictions constitute the same criminal conduct.1 RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a) defines 1 State v. Aldana Graciano, 176 Wn.2d 531, 539 , 295 P.3d 219 (2013) (citing State v. Farias Lopez. 142 Wn. 2014A defendant can overcome a presumption that each conviction counts separately for offender score purposes1 by establishing that two or more convictions constitute the 1 State v. Aldana Graciano, 176 Wn.2d 531, 539 , 295 P.3d 219 (2013). -3- No. 71202-1-1/4 same criminal conduct.2 A sentencing court makes this determination by using the "same criminal conduct" analysis prescribed by RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a).3 This analysis requires the court to ask if "two or more crimes . . . require the same criminal intent, are committed at the same time and place, and involve the same victim."4 If the defendant | 2 | 2014–2015 |
State v. Graciano
green
2 sentences2015A defendant can overcome the presumption that each conviction counts separately for offender score purposes by establishing that two or more convictions constitute the same criminal conduct.1 RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a) defines 1 State v. Aldana Graciano, 176 Wn.2d 531, 539 , 295 P.3d 219 (2013) (citing State v. Farias Lopez. 142 Wn. 2015A defendant can overcome the presumption that each conviction counts separately for offender score purposes by establishing that two or more convictions constitute the same criminal conduct.1 RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a) defines 1 State v. Aldana Graciano, 176 Wn.2d 531, 539 , 295 P.3d 219 (2013) (citing State v. Farias Lopez. 142 Wn. | 2 | 2014–2015 |
State v. Byrd
green
2 sentences2013Byrd, 30 Wn. 2013Byrd, 30 Wn. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of: Jose Manual Quintero
green
2 sentences2025Restraint of Quintero, 29 Wn. App. 2d 254 , 286, 541 P.3d 1007 (quoting State v. Davis, 174 Wn. App. 623, 639 , 300 P.3d 465 (2013)), review denied, 3 Wn.3d 1018 (2024). “‘A defendant can overcome this presumption by showing that counsel failed to adequately investigate or prepare for trial.’” Id. (quoting Davis, 174 Wn. App. at 639 ). 2025Restraint of Quintero, 29 Wn. App. 2d 254 , 286, 541 P.3d 1007 (quoting State v. Davis, 174 Wn. App. 623, 639 , 300 P.3d 465 (2013)), review denied, 3 Wn.3d 1018 (2024). “‘A defendant can overcome this presumption by showing that counsel failed to adequately investigate or prepare for trial.’” Id. (quoting Davis, 174 Wn. App. at 639 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State Of Washington v. Kevin Lee Estes
green
2 sentences2025Second, prejudice requires showing that but for counsel’s deficient performance, “there is a reasonable probability . . . the result of the proceeding would have differed.” State v. Estes, 193 Wn. App. 479, 488 , 372 P.3d 163 (2016). “‘A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’” In re Pers. 2025Second, prejudice requires showing that but for counsel’s deficient performance, “there is a reasonable probability . . . the result of the proceeding would have differed.” State v. Estes, 193 Wn. App. 479, 488 , 372 P.3d 163 (2016). “‘A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’” In re Pers. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Reichenbach
green
2 sentences2023A defendant can overcome the presumption of reasonableness by showing that “‘there is no conceivable legitimate tactic explaining counsel’s performance.’” Grier, 171 Wn.2d at 33 (quoting State v. Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d 126, 130 , 101 P.3d 80 (2004)). 2023A defendant can overcome the presumption of reasonableness by showing that “‘there is no conceivable legitimate tactic explaining counsel’s performance.’” Grier, 171 Wn.2d at 33 (quoting State v. Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d 126, 130 , 101 P.3d 80 (2004)). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Grier
green
1 sentence2023A defendant can overcome the presumption of reasonableness by showing that “‘there is no conceivable legitimate tactic explaining counsel’s performance.’” Grier, 171 Wn.2d at 33 (quoting State v. Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d 126, 130 , 101 P.3d 80 (2004)). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re the Personal Restraint of Jeffries
green
2 sentences2006The defendant may also meet this burden by demonstrating "the absence of legitimate strategic or tactical reasons supporting the challenged conduct by counsel." McFarland, 127 Wash.2d at 336 , 899 P.2d 1251 ; see also State v. Lord, 117 Wash.2d 829, 883 , 822 P.2d 177 (1991); State v. Adams, 91 Wash.2d 86, 90 , 586 P.2d 1168 (1978). ¶ 23 The State contends that the Court of Appeals erred in finding deficient performance under our decisions in In re Personal Restraint of Jeffries, 110 Wash.2d 326 , 752 P.2d 1338 (1988) and State v. Benn, 120 Wash.2d 631, 663-65 , 845 P.2d 289 (1993). 2006The defendant may also meet this burden by demonstrating "the absence of legitimate strategic or tactical reasons supporting the challenged conduct by counsel." McFarland, 127 Wash.2d at 336 , 899 P.2d 1251 ; see also State v. Lord, 117 Wash.2d 829, 883 , 822 P.2d 177 (1991); State v. Adams, 91 Wash.2d 86, 90 , 586 P.2d 1168 (1978). ¶ 23 The State contends that the Court of Appeals erred in finding deficient performance under our decisions in In re Personal Restraint of Jeffries, 110 Wash.2d 326 , 752 P.2d 1338 (1988) and State v. Benn, 120 Wash.2d 631, 663-65 , 845 P.2d 289 (1993). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Adams
green
2 sentences2006The defendant may also meet this burden by demonstrating "the absence of legitimate strategic or tactical reasons supporting the challenged conduct by counsel." McFarland, 127 Wash.2d at 336 , 899 P.2d 1251 ; see also State v. Lord, 117 Wash.2d 829, 883 , 822 P.2d 177 (1991); State v. Adams, 91 Wash.2d 86, 90 , 586 P.2d 1168 (1978). ¶ 23 The State contends that the Court of Appeals erred in finding deficient performance under our decisions in In re Personal Restraint of Jeffries, 110 Wash.2d 326 , 752 P.2d 1338 (1988) and State v. Benn, 120 Wash.2d 631, 663-65 , 845 P.2d 289 (1993). 2006The defendant may also meet this burden by demonstrating "the absence of legitimate strategic or tactical reasons supporting the challenged conduct by counsel." McFarland, 127 Wash.2d at 336 , 899 P.2d 1251 ; see also State v. Lord, 117 Wash.2d 829, 883 , 822 P.2d 177 (1991); State v. Adams, 91 Wash.2d 86, 90 , 586 P.2d 1168 (1978). ¶ 23 The State contends that the Court of Appeals erred in finding deficient performance under our decisions in In re Personal Restraint of Jeffries, 110 Wash.2d 326 , 752 P.2d 1338 (1988) and State v. Benn, 120 Wash.2d 631, 663-65 , 845 P.2d 289 (1993). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Benn
green
2 sentences2006The defendant may also meet this burden by demonstrating "the absence of legitimate strategic or tactical reasons supporting the challenged conduct by counsel." McFarland, 127 Wash.2d at 336 , 899 P.2d 1251 ; see also State v. Lord, 117 Wash.2d 829, 883 , 822 P.2d 177 (1991); State v. Adams, 91 Wash.2d 86, 90 , 586 P.2d 1168 (1978). ¶ 23 The State contends that the Court of Appeals erred in finding deficient performance under our decisions in In re Personal Restraint of Jeffries, 110 Wash.2d 326 , 752 P.2d 1338 (1988) and State v. Benn, 120 Wash.2d 631, 663-65 , 845 P.2d 289 (1993). 2006The defendant may also meet this burden by demonstrating "the absence of legitimate strategic or tactical reasons supporting the challenged conduct by counsel." McFarland, 127 Wash.2d at 336 , 899 P.2d 1251 ; see also State v. Lord, 117 Wash.2d 829, 883 , 822 P.2d 177 (1991); State v. Adams, 91 Wash.2d 86, 90 , 586 P.2d 1168 (1978). ¶ 23 The State contends that the Court of Appeals erred in finding deficient performance under our decisions in In re Personal Restraint of Jeffries, 110 Wash.2d 326 , 752 P.2d 1338 (1988) and State v. Benn, 120 Wash.2d 631, 663-65 , 845 P.2d 289 (1993). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Harris
green
2 sentences1994The Harris court also held that if it is clear to the trial court "in the first instance” that the defense has established either prong of the Roviaro standard (relevant and helpful to the defense or essential to a fair determination), fundamental fairness requires disclosure. 91 Wn.2d at 149 . *785 Failure to disclose when the defendant has established either Roviaro prong would prejudice the defendant, even if the trial court "believes the testimony could not benefit the accused. . . . [I]t does not matter whether the testimony of the informer would support the accused or not.” Harris, 91 Wn 1994The Harris court also held that if it is clear to the trial court "in the first instance” that the defense has established either prong of the Roviaro standard (relevant and helpful to the defense or essential to a fair determination), fundamental fairness requires disclosure. 91 Wn.2d at 149 . *785 Failure to disclose when the defendant has established either Roviaro prong would prejudice the defendant, even if the trial court "believes the testimony could not benefit the accused. . . . [I]t does not matter whether the testimony of the informer would support the accused or not.” Harris, 91 Wn | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Redd
green
2 sentences1994Some appellate courts hold that a defendant can overcome the privilege by showing that the informant is a material witness as to guilt or innocence, e.g., Casal, 103 Wn.2d at 816 ; State v. Redd, 51 Wn. App. 597, 606 , 754 P.2d 1041 , review denied, 111 Wn.2d 1008 (1988), or a material witness relevant and helpful to the defense, e.g, Vazquez, 66 Wn. App. at 581, 583-84 . 1994Some appellate courts hold that a defendant can overcome the privilege by showing that the informant is a material witness as to guilt or innocence, e.g., Casal, 103 Wn.2d at 816 ; State v. Redd, 51 Wn. App. 597, 606 , 754 P.2d 1041 , review denied, 111 Wn.2d 1008 (1988), or a material witness relevant and helpful to the defense, e.g, Vazquez, 66 Wn. App. at 581, 583-84 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Casal
green
1 sentence1994Some appellate courts hold that a defendant can overcome the privilege by showing that the informant is a material witness as to guilt or innocence, e.g., Casal, 103 Wn.2d at 816 ; State v. Redd, 51 Wn. App. 597, 606 , 754 P.2d 1041 , review denied, 111 Wn.2d 1008 (1988), or a material witness relevant and helpful to the defense, e.g, Vazquez, 66 Wn. App. at 581, 583-84 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.