13 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland 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 sentences2026“The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). 2025“The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). | 3 | 13 |
State v. Purveygreen1 sentence2023Whether Lomax received ineffective assistance of counsel is “a mixed question of fact and law.” State v. Purvey, 129 Md. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Syedgreen2 sentences2021In the absence of a showing of deficient performance and the resulting prejudice, “it cannot be said that the conviction resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.” Syed, 463 Md. at 75 , 204 A.3d at 147 (citation omitted). 2021In the absence of a showing of deficient performance and the resulting prejudice, “it cannot be said that the conviction resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.” Syed, 463 Md. at 75 , 204 A.3d at 147 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blake v. State
green
1 sentence2025We apply “a two-part test to determine when counsel’s actions violate a defendant’s constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.” Blake, 485 Md. at 292 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Lockhart v. Fretwell
green
2 sentences2017Because the “prejudice prong” requires only a significant “possibility” of a different result, the prejudice analysis “should not focus solely on an outcome determination, but should consider ‘whether the result of the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable.’ ” Oken, 343 Md. at 284 , 681 A.2d 30 (quoting, in part, Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369 , 113 S.Ct. 838 , 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993)). “ ‘The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on 2017Because the “prejudice prong” requires only a significant “possibility” of a different result, the prejudice analysis “should not focus solely on an outcome determination, but should consider ‘whether the result of the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable.’ ” Oken, 343 Md. at 284 , 681 A.2d 30 (quoting, in part, Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369 , 113 S.Ct. 838 , 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993)). “ ‘The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Bradley
green
1 sentence2017Because the “prejudice prong” requires only a significant “possibility” of a different result, the prejudice analysis “should not focus solely on an outcome determination, but should consider ‘whether the result of the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable.’ ” Oken, 343 Md. at 284 , 681 A.2d 30 (quoting, in part, Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369 , 113 S.Ct. 838 , 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993)). “ ‘The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Coleman v. State
green
1 sentence2017Because the “prejudice prong” requires only a significant “possibility” of a different result, the prejudice analysis “should not focus solely on an outcome determination, but should consider ‘whether the result of the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable.’ ” Oken, 343 Md. at 284 , 681 A.2d 30 (quoting, in part, Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369 , 113 S.Ct. 838 , 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993)). “ ‘The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Oken v. State
green
2 sentences2017Because the “prejudice prong” requires only a significant “possibility” of a different result, the prejudice analysis “should not focus solely on an outcome determination, but should consider ‘whether the result of the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable.’ ” Oken, 343 Md. at 284 , 681 A.2d 30 (quoting, in part, Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369 , 113 S.Ct. 838 , 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993)). “ ‘The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on 2017Because the “prejudice prong” requires only a significant “possibility” of a different result, the prejudice analysis “should not focus solely on an outcome determination, but should consider ‘whether the result of the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable.’ ” Oken, 343 Md. at 284 , 681 A.2d 30 (quoting, in part, Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369 , 113 S.Ct. 838 , 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993)). “ ‘The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Denisyuk v. State
green
1 sentence2012“The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Id. (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.