Strickland two-part test (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

Strickland two-part test in Texas

10 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1987–2024 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Texas 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Strickland v. Washingtongreen
scotus · 1984 · cited in 7 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1987–2015
2 sentences

2015In addition, the •• defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense . •• This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the •• defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable . •• • •• •• •• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 . •• The purpose of the Strickland two part test is to judge whether counsel's conduct so compromised the proper functioning of the adversarial process that •• the trial cannot be said to have produced a reliable result.

2008See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984).

57
Thompson v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1999 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 812-13 (Tex. Crim.

2015Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 812-13 (Tex. Crim!

22
Ex Parte Aftab Aligreen
texapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024See Ex parte Ali, 368 S.W.3d 827, 833 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, pet. ref’d). 4 This standard is deferential to the trial court, requiring us to view the evidence in the light most favorable to its ruling.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Ex Parte Duffy green
texcrimapp · 1980
2 sentences

1987Or, the proposition that counsel's performance was so deficient that he "was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment," Id. 104 S.Ct. at 2064 , simply asserts the very point it establishes in the conclusion. [see: Brooks, et al, Modern Rhetoric, 3rd ed. (Harcourt, Brace, & World: New York, 1958), p. 221] Although the statement appears to establish its conclusion it fails to do so; thus, it is fallacious.

1987Or, the proposition that counsel’s performance was so deficient that he “was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment,” Id. 104 S.Ct. at 2064 , simply asserts the very point it establishes in the conclusion, [see: Brooks, et al, Modem Rhetoric, 3rd ed. (Harcourt, Brace, & World: New York, 1958), p. 221] Although the statement appears to establish its conclusion it fails to do so; thus, it is fallacious.

11987–1987

Where else courts name it

NJ 141 (1986–2026) OH 50 (1999–2026) TX 10 (1987–2024) IL 5 (2010–2021) MS 5 (2000–2001) TN 5 (1994–1997) IN 4 (2000–2014) ID 2 (1997–2016) VA 2 (2003–2005)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check