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.
9 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. Wainwrightgreen2 sentences2007A. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel The requirements for establishing a claim based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel parallel the standards announced in Strickland . "[The][p]etitioner must show 1) specific errors or omissions which show that appellate counsel's performance deviated from the norm or fell outside the range of professionally acceptable performance, and 2) the deficiency of that performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the fairness and correctness of the appellate result." Wilson v. Wainwright , 474 So.2 2004A. Appellate Counsel's Ineffectiveness Regarding the HAC Aggravator The requirements for establishing a claim based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel parallel the standards announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). "[The] [p]etitioner must show 1) specific errors or omissions which show that appellate counsel's performance deviated from the norm or fell outside the range of professionally acceptable performance and 2) the deficiency of that performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence | 7 | 8 |
Freeman v. Stategreen2 sentences2004A. Appellate Counsel's Ineffectiveness Regarding the HAC Aggravator The requirements for establishing a claim based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel parallel the standards announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). "[The] [p]etitioner must show 1) specific errors or omissions which show that appellate counsel's performance deviated from the norm or fell outside the range of professionally acceptable performance and 2) the deficiency of that performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence 2002The requirements for establishing a claim based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel parallel the standards announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). "[The] [p]etitioner must show (1) specific errors or omissions which show that appellate counsel's performance deviated from the norm or fell outside the range of professionally acceptable performance; and (2) the deficiency of that performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the fairness and correctness of the appellate result." Wilson | 4 | 4 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2024App. P. 9.141(d)(5) (setting forth two-year limitation to file a petition for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on direct review or four-year limitation where a petition “alleges under oath with a specific factual basis that the petitioner was affirmatively misled about the results of the appeal by counsel”); see also Smith v. State, 931 So. 2d 790, 805 (Fla. 2006) (“The requirements for establishing a claim based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel parallel the standards announced in Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)]. 2004A. Appellate Counsel's Ineffectiveness Regarding the HAC Aggravator The requirements for establishing a claim based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel parallel the standards announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). "[The] [p]etitioner must show 1) specific errors or omissions which show that appellate counsel's performance deviated from the norm or fell outside the range of professionally acceptable performance and 2) the deficiency of that performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence | 1 | 6 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2024App. P. 9.141(d)(5) (setting forth two-year limitation to file a petition for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on direct review or four-year limitation where a petition “alleges under oath with a specific factual basis that the petitioner was affirmatively misled about the results of the appeal by counsel”); see also Smith v. State, 931 So. 2d 790, 805 (Fla. 2006) (“The requirements for establishing a claim based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel parallel the standards announced in Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)]. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Delvagreen1 sentence2004Procedurally barred claims not properly raised during trial cannot form a basis for finding appellate counsel ineffective absent a showing of fundamental error, which is defined as an error that "reach[es] down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error." State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644-45 (Fla.1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Suarez v. Dugger
green
2 sentences2004A. Appellate Counsel's Ineffectiveness Regarding the HAC Aggravator The requirements for establishing a claim based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel parallel the standards announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). "[The] [p]etitioner must show 1) specific errors or omissions which show that appellate counsel's performance deviated from the norm or fell outside the range of professionally acceptable performance and 2) the deficiency of that performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence 2002The requirements for establishing a claim based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel parallel the standards announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). "[The] [p]etitioner must show (1) specific errors or omissions which show that appellate counsel's performance deviated from the norm or fell outside the range of professionally acceptable performance; and (2) the deficiency of that performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the fairness and correctness of the appellate result." Wilson | 4 | 2001–2004 |
Bucherie v. State
neutral
1 sentence1985We review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Bucherie v. State, 450 So.2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which expressly and directly conflicts with Downs v. State, 453 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 1984); Messer v. State, 439 So.2d 875 (Fla. 1983); Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla. 1981); and other decisions of this Court reciting the requirements for establishing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Messer v. State
green
1 sentence1985We review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Bucherie v. State, 450 So.2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which expressly and directly conflicts with Downs v. State, 453 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 1984); Messer v. State, 439 So.2d 875 (Fla. 1983); Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla. 1981); and other decisions of this Court reciting the requirements for establishing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Knight v. State
green
1 sentence1985We review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Bucherie v. State, 450 So.2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which expressly and directly conflicts with Downs v. State, 453 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 1984); Messer v. State, 439 So.2d 875 (Fla. 1983); Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla. 1981); and other decisions of this Court reciting the requirements for establishing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Downs v. State
green
1 sentence1985We review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Bucherie v. State, 450 So.2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which expressly and directly conflicts with Downs v. State, 453 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 1984); Messer v. State, 439 So.2d 875 (Fla. 1983); Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla. 1981); and other decisions of this Court reciting the requirements for establishing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.