IAC claim in Indiana

7 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2020 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Williams v. Taylorgreen scotus · 2000 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2000–2016 2 sentences 2016Rather, it enters into the determination of whether the likelihood of a different outcome qualifies as prejudice in the Strickland sense.” Coleman v. State, 741 N.E.2d 697, 699 (Ind. 2000) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391-92 (2000)), reh’g denied, cert. denied. 2016Rather, it enters into the determination of whether the likelihood of a different outcome qualifies as prejudice in the Strickland sense.” Coleman v. State, 741 N.E.2d 697, 699 (Ind. 2000) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391-92 (2000)), reh’g denied, cert. denied.	2	2
Lee v. Stategreen ind · 1998 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 2 sentences 2020Lee v. State, 694 N.E.2d 719, 722 (Ind. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1023 (1998). 1. 2020Lee v. State, 694 N.E.2d 719, 722 (Ind. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1023 (1998). 1.	1	1
Johnson v. Stategreen ind · 2011 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 948 N.E.2d 331, 334 (Ind. 2011) (rejecting the conflict-of-interest exception to Strickland where there was no “other client or interest to which counsel owed a [conflicting] duty of loyalty”); McGillem v. State, 516 N.E.2d 1112, 1113 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (applying Strickland prejudice standard despite defendant’s conflict-of- interest claim against trial counsel who also served as city attorney).	1	1
McGillem v. Stategreen indctapp · 1987 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 948 N.E.2d 331, 334 (Ind. 2011) (rejecting the conflict-of-interest exception to Strickland where there was no “other client or interest to which counsel owed a [conflicting] duty of loyalty”); McGillem v. State, 516 N.E.2d 1112, 1113 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (applying Strickland prejudice standard despite defendant’s conflict-of- interest claim against trial counsel who also served as city attorney).	1	1
Coleman v. Stategreen ind · 2000 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016Rather, it enters into the determination of whether the likelihood of a different outcome qualifies as prejudice in the Strickland sense.” Coleman v. State, 741 N.E.2d 697, 699 (Ind. 2000) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391-92 (2000)), reh’g denied, cert. denied. 2016Rather, it enters into the determination of whether the likelihood of a different outcome qualifies as prejudice in the Strickland sense.” Coleman v. State, 741 N.E.2d 697, 699 (Ind. 2000) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391-92 (2000)), reh’g denied, cert. denied.	1	1
Woods v. Stategreen ind · 1998 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010In Woods v. State, 701 N.E.2d 1208, 1220 (Ind.1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 861 , 120 S.Ct. 150 , 145 L.Ed.2d 128 (1999), our Supreme Court explained: As already noted, some grounds supporting an assertion of inadequate representation will not be reasonably knowable, much less fully factually developed, until after direct appeal. 2010In Woods v. State, 701 N.E.2d 1208, 1220 (Ind.1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 861 , 120 S.Ct. 150 , 145 L.Ed.2d 128 (1999), our Supreme Court explained: As already noted, some grounds supporting an assertion of inadequate representation will not be reasonably knowable, much less fully factually developed, until after direct appeal.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
Strickland v. Washington green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 2000Applying the two-part IAC test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court held that this failure amounted to constitutionally deficient performance under the Sixth Amendment, and also prejudiced the defense to the point of depriving Williams of a fair trial with a reliable result. 2000Applying the two-part IAC test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court held that this failure amounted to constitutionally deficient performance under the Sixth Amendment, and also prejudiced the defense to the point of depriving Williams of a fair trial with a reliable result.	3	2000–2020
Foster v. Nelson green scotus · 1998 2 sentences 2020Lee v. State, 694 N.E.2d 719, 722 (Ind. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1023 (1998). 1. 2020Lee v. State, 694 N.E.2d 719, 722 (Ind. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1023 (1998). 1.	1	2020–2020
Roper v. Simmons green scotus · 2005 2 sentences 2020Id. at 4As we explain in greater detail in Section II below, an IAC claim requires Wilson to prove (1) that his counsel’s performance fell short of prevailing professional norms, and (2) that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced his defense. 2020Id. at 4As we explain in greater detail in Section II below, an IAC claim requires Wilson to prove (1) that his counsel’s performance fell short of prevailing professional norms, and (2) that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced his defense.	1	2020–2020
Ritchie v. State green ind · 2007 1 sentence 2020The court cited as an example our decision in Indiana Supreme Court \| Case No. 19S-PC-548 \| November 17, 2020 Page 22 of 30 Ritchie v. State, a death penalty appeal, in support of this proposition. 875 N.E.2d 706 (Ind. 2007).	1	2020–2020
Freddie L. McKnight, III v. State of Indiana green indctapp · 2013 2 sentences 2020“This is necessary because success on the prejudice prong of an IAC claim requires a showing of a reasonable probability affecting the result.” Id. 2020“This is necessary because success on the prejudice prong of an IAC claim requires a showing of a reasonable probability affecting the result.” Id.	1	2020–2020
Alford v. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit green scotus · 1999 2 sentences 2010In Woods v. State, 701 N.E.2d 1208, 1220 (Ind.1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 861 , 120 S.Ct. 150 , 145 L.Ed.2d 128 (1999), our Supreme Court explained: As already noted, some grounds supporting an assertion of inadequate representation will not be reasonably knowable, much less fully factually developed, until after direct appeal. 2010In Woods v. State, 701 N.E.2d 1208, 1220 (Ind.1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 861 , 120 S.Ct. 150 , 145 L.Ed.2d 128 (1999), our Supreme Court explained: As already noted, some grounds supporting an assertion of inadequate representation will not be reasonably knowable, much less fully factually developed, until after direct appeal.	1	2010–2010
Brigaerts v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California green scotus · 1999 2 sentences 2010In Woods v. State, 701 N.E.2d 1208, 1220 (Ind.1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 861 , 120 S.Ct. 150 , 145 L.Ed.2d 128 (1999), our Supreme Court explained: As already noted, some grounds supporting an assertion of inadequate representation will not be reasonably knowable, much less fully factually developed, until after direct appeal. 2010In Woods v. State, 701 N.E.2d 1208, 1220 (Ind.1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 861 , 120 S.Ct. 150 , 145 L.Ed.2d 128 (1999), our Supreme Court explained: As already noted, some grounds supporting an assertion of inadequate representation will not be reasonably knowable, much less fully factually developed, until after direct appeal.	1	2010–2010
State v. White green sc · 1922 2 sentences 2010In Woods v. State, 701 N.E.2d 1208, 1220 (Ind.1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 861 , 120 S.Ct. 150 , 145 L.Ed.2d 128 (1999), our Supreme Court explained: As already noted, some grounds supporting an assertion of inadequate representation will not be reasonably knowable, much less fully factually developed, until after direct appeal. 2010In Woods v. State, 701 N.E.2d 1208, 1220 (Ind.1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 861 , 120 S.Ct. 150 , 145 L.Ed.2d 128 (1999), our Supreme Court explained: As already noted, some grounds supporting an assertion of inadequate representation will not be reasonably knowable, much less fully factually developed, until after direct appeal.	1	2010–2010
Jones v. Lucas County Children Services Board green ohioctapp · 1988 2 sentences 2004Bd., 46 Ohio App.3d 85 , 546 N.E.2d 471 (1988) (each applies the criminal IAC standard which examines whether the defendant was likely deprived of an otherwise available substantial defense.) Other jurisdictions have reached diverse decisions. 2004Bd., 46 Ohio App.3d 85 , 546 N.E.2d 471 (1988) (each applies the criminal IAC standard which examines whether the defendant was likely deprived of an otherwise available substantial defense.) Other jurisdictions have reached diverse decisions.	1	2004–2004

Where else courts name it

CA 101 (2013–2026) NJ 97 (2004–2026) PA 90 (2003–2026) NC 79 (2001–2026) AZ 61 (2007–2026) MT 52 (2008–2026) DE 28 (2016–2026) WA 12 (2023–2026) TX 12 (2012–2024) IN 7 (2000–2020) MO 5 (2011–2020) FL 4 (2002–2006) KY 2 (2014–2014) ID 2 (2022–2024) UT 2 (2015–2015)

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