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.
12 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah 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 sentences2019See generally Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ("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."). 2019See generally Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ("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."). | 3 | 11 |
State in Interest of EH v. AHgreen2 sentences2015C.C,, 2002 UT App 149, ¶ 10 , 48 P.3d 244 (imposing duty on juvenile court to inquire into a parent's expressed dissatisfaction with appointed counsel during termination proceedings). 4 21 "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 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also State in Interest of E.H., 880 P.2d at 13 (adopting the Strickland test to determine a claim 2015ANALYSIS ¶21 ‚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); see also In re E.H., 880 P.2d at 13 (adopting the Strickland test to determine a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in proceedings involving termination of parental rights). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Tennysongreen1 sentence2011Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ¶ 14 "`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.'" State v. Tennyson, 850 P.2d 461, 465 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Cc
green
2 sentences2015C.C,, 2002 UT App 149, ¶ 10 , 48 P.3d 244 (imposing duty on juvenile court to inquire into a parent's expressed dissatisfaction with appointed counsel during termination proceedings). 4 21 "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 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also State in Interest of E.H., 880 P.2d at 13 (adopting the Strickland test to determine a claim 2015C.C,, 2002 UT App 149, ¶ 10 , 48 P.3d 244 (imposing duty on juvenile court to inquire into a parent's expressed dissatisfaction with appointed counsel during termination proceedings). 4 21 "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 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also State in Interest of E.H., 880 P.2d at 13 (adopting the Strickland test to determine a claim | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Layton City v. Carr
green
2 sentences2019"When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law." Layton City v. Carr , 2014 UT App 227 , ¶ 6, 336 P.3d 587 (quotation simplified). 2019"When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law." Layton City v. Carr , 2014 UT App 227 , ¶ 6, 336 P.3d 587 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Martinez-Castellanos
green
1 sentence2017“The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial 20130432-CA 24 2017 UT App 13 State v. Martinez-Castellanos process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Id. at 686. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Lee
green
2 sentences2011Thus, "[t]o prove that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance, [Sellers] must demonstrate [both] that (1) counsel's performance was so deficient as to fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) but for counsel's deficient performance there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different." See State v. Lee, 2006 UT 5, ¶ 37 , 128 P.3d 1179 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . 2011Thus, "[t]o prove that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance, [Sellers] must demonstrate [both] that (1) counsel's performance was so deficient as to fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) but for counsel's deficient performance there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different." See State v. Lee, 2006 UT 5, ¶ 37 , 128 P.3d 1179 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
United States v. Cronic
green
2 sentences1994“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. 648, 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2039, 2063-64 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). 1994“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. 648, 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2039, 2063-64 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.