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.
11 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hill v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Similarly, given the civil nature of probation revocation proceedings and the corresponding due process rights applicable in such proceedings, we will apply the Baum standard to Jordan’s claim of ineffective assistance of probation revocation counsel. 10 See id.; see also Hill v. State, 960 N.E.2d 141, 143 (Ind.2012) (holding that the Baum standard was the “appropriate standard” for judging the performance of counsel in a Post-Conviction Rule 2—or a belated notice of appeal—proceeding), reh’g denied. [25] Applying this “lesser” standard, we conclude that Jordan has failed to show that his prob 2016Similarly, given the civil nature of probation revocation proceedings and the corresponding due process rights applicable in such proceedings, we will apply the Baum standard to Jordan’s claim of ineffective assistance of probation revocation counsel. 10 See id.; see also Hill v. State, 960 N.E.2d 141, 143 (Ind.2012) (holding that the Baum standard was the “appropriate standard” for judging the performance of counsel in a Post-Conviction Rule 2—or a belated notice of appeal—proceeding), reh’g denied. [25] Applying this “lesser” standard, we conclude that Jordan has failed to show that his prob | 2 | 5 |
Graves v. Stategreen2 sentences2019And in Graves, this Court described our Baker test as “something akin to the Baum standard.” 823 N.E.2d at 1196 n.4. 2019And in Graves, this Court described our Baker test as “something akin to the Baum standard.” 823 N.E.2d at 1196 n.4. | 1 | 3 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2012The Strickland standard requires that to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) the attorney’s performance was unreasonable based on prevailing professional norms and (2) “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 688, 694 . 6 2012) (reaffirming the Baum standard as the appropriate standard for evaluating post- conviction counsel’s performance). 2012The Strickland standard requires that to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) the attorney’s performance was unreasonable based on prevailing professional norms and (2) “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 688, 694 . 6 2012) (reaffirming the Baum standard as the appropriate standard for evaluating post- conviction counsel’s performance). | 1 | 3 |
Waters v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Furthermore, Reed’s performance can be easily contrasted with the post-conviction counsel’s performance in Waters, 574 N.E.2d 911 , where this Court did find a Baum violation. 2012Furthermore, Reed’s performance can be easily contrasted with the post-conviction counsel’s performance in Waters, 574 N.E.2d 911 , where this Court did find a Baum violation. | 1 | 2 |
Matheney v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., Matheney v. State, 834 N.E.2d 658, 661-63 (Ind.2005); Graves, 823 N.E.2d at 1197 ; Waters v. State, 574 N.E.2d 911, 912 (Ind.1991). *146 The question remains: which standard— Strickland or Baum —is appropriate for judging the performance of counsel in conjunction with P-C.R. 2 petitions and proceedings? 2012See, e.g., Matheney v. State, 834 N.E.2d 658, 661-63 (Ind.2005); Graves, 823 N.E.2d at 1197 ; Waters v. State, 574 N.E.2d 911, 912 (Ind.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Daniels v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Daniels v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1177, 1190 (Ind.2001). 2012Daniels v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1177, 1190 (Ind.2001). | 1 | 1 |
Poling v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Poling v. State, 740 N.E.2d 872, 878-79 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Marion County Office of Family & Childrengreen2 sentences2005It focuses not on whether the lawyer might have done this or that, but whether "the parents received a fundamentally fair trial whose facts demonstrate an accurate determination." Baker v. Marion County Office of Family and Children, 810 N.E.2d 1035, 1041 (Ind.2004). 2005It focuses not on whether the lawyer might have done this or that, but whether "the parents received a fundamentally fair trial whose facts demonstrate an accurate determination." Baker v. Marion County Office of Family and Children, 810 N.E.2d 1035, 1041 (Ind.2004). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Baum v. State
green
2 sentences2014Id. 2012Emerson did not provide evidence showing anything other than the fact that Emerson’s counsel “in fact appeared and represented the petitioner in a procedurally fair setting which resulted in a judgment of the court.” Baum, 533 N.E.2d at 1201 . | 2 | 2012–2014 |
Mark L. Jordan v. State of Indiana
green
2 sentences2014We also observe that the Court in Hill stated that the Baum standard is highly deferential and a 3 Canenguez-Ramirez relies upon Jordan v. State, 988 N.E.2d 394 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), for the proposition that he could not be at fault for failing to file a timely notice of appeal. 2014We also observe that the Court in Hill stated that the Baum standard is highly deferential and a 3 Canenguez-Ramirez relies upon Jordan v. State, 988 N.E.2d 394 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), for the proposition that he could not be at fault for failing to file a timely notice of appeal. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Patton v. State
green
2 sentences2001We do not believe this was a ‘procedurally fair setting' because, in essence, the court had no record before it from which it could review Patton’s claim.” Patton, 537 N.E.2d at 519-20 . 2001We do not believe this was a ‘procedurally fair setting' because, in essence, the court had no record before it from which it could review Patton’s claim.” Patton, 537 N.E.2d at 519-20 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Evans v. State
green
2 sentences1991Without deciding the issue, we determine that appellate counsel's performance was effective even under the more stringent Strickland standard. [2] We note that in Evans v. State (1986), Ind., 497 N.E.2d 919 , 923-24 the court acknowledged that the statutory factor concerning the depreciating effect of imposing a reduced sentence has apparent application only when the court is considering imposing a reduced sentence. 1991Without deciding the issue, we determine that appellate counsel's performance was effective even under the more stringent Strickland standard. [2] We note that in Evans v. State (1986), Ind., 497 N.E.2d 919 , 923-24 the court acknowledged that the statutory factor concerning the depreciating effect of imposing a reduced sentence has apparent application only when the court is considering imposing a reduced sentence. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.