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.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Jenningsgreen2 sentences2018(People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1318 (Jennings).) When a defendant makes an effective assistance claim on direct appeal, “the appellate court must look to see if the record contains any explanation for the challenged aspects of representation. 2015(People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1318 (Jennings).) When a defendant makes an effective assistance claim on direct appeal, “the appellate court must look to see if the record contains any explanation for the challenged aspects of representation. | 2 | 2 |
S. Elise D. v. Steven D.yellow2 sentences1994John contends that this conduct prejudiced his case and fails to meet the effective assistance standard. (14) "Ineffective assistance of counsel presents a cognizable claim of error on appeal from proceedings to terminate parental rights, since [the] due process right to counsel in such proceedings would otherwise be a hollow right. [Citations.]" ( Adoption of Michael D. (1989) 209 Cal. App.3d 122, 135 [ 256 Cal. Rptr. 884 ].) *1809 A litigant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced his case, that is, that absent counsel's err 1994John contends that this conduct prejudiced his case and fails to meet the effective assistance standard. (14) "Ineffective assistance of counsel presents a cognizable claim of error on appeal from proceedings to terminate parental rights, since [the] due process right to counsel in such proceedings would otherwise be a hollow right. [Citations.]" ( Adoption of Michael D. (1989) 209 Cal. App.3d 122, 135 [ 256 Cal. Rptr. 884 ].) *1809 A litigant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced his case, that is, that absent counsel's err | 2 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences1994John contends that this conduct prejudiced his case and fails to meet the effective assistance standard. (14) "Ineffective assistance of counsel presents a cognizable claim of error on appeal from proceedings to terminate parental rights, since [the] due process right to counsel in such proceedings would otherwise be a hollow right. [Citations.]" ( Adoption of Michael D. (1989) 209 Cal. App.3d 122, 135 [ 256 Cal. Rptr. 884 ].) *1809 A litigant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced his case, that is, that absent counsel's err 1994John contends that this conduct prejudiced his case and fails to meet the effective assistance standard. (14) "Ineffective assistance of counsel presents a cognizable claim of error on appeal from proceedings to terminate parental rights, since [the] due process right to counsel in such proceedings would otherwise be a hollow right. [Citations.]" ( Adoption of Michael D. (1989) 209 Cal. App.3d 122, 135 [ 256 Cal. Rptr. 884 ].) *1809 A litigant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced his case, that is, that absent counsel's err | 1 | 2 |
The People v. Maired1 sentence2021(See People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009 [“a reviewing court defers to counsel’s reasonable tactical decisions” when reviewing an effective assistance claim]; Evid. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hayesgreen2 sentences1994It is unlikely that the motion would have been granted even with a declaration such as the one John submitted in support of his first motion, even if his counsel pointed out that John had not been caring for Krystle on a day-to-day basis since her removal from Brenda because the Department would not let him, and even if counsel did not "meekly accept[] the ruling ... without asking ... for the reasons" for the decision. "[A] claim of constitutionally inadequate representation requires proof of two components, deficient performance and resulting prejudice, but the former component need not be e 1994It is unlikely that the motion would have been granted even with a declaration such as the one John submitted in support of his first motion, even if his counsel pointed out that John had not been caring for Krystle on a day-to-day basis since her removal from Brenda because the Department would not let him, and even if counsel did not "meekly accept[] the ruling ... without asking ... for the reasons" for the decision. "[A] claim of constitutionally inadequate representation requires proof of two components, deficient performance and resulting prejudice, but the former component need not be e | 1 | 1 |
Maxwell v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1990We are justifiably concerned about the right to counsel of choice, and thus the right to effective assistance of counsel (see Maxwell v. Superior Court (1982) 30 Cal.3d 606, 613 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 177 , 639 P.2d 248 , 18 A.L.R.4th 333 ] [right to counsel of choice closely linked with the doctrine of effective assistance]), when a defendant is forced to choose between proceeding to trial without an attorney or continuing to trial with an attorney originally hired to represent him but whom he no longer is able to pay. 1990We are justifiably concerned about the right to counsel of choice, and thus the right to effective assistance of counsel (see Maxwell v. Superior Court (1982) 30 Cal.3d 606, 613 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 177 , 639 P.2d 248 , 18 A.L.R.4th 333 ] [right to counsel of choice closely linked with the doctrine of effective assistance]), when a defendant is forced to choose between proceeding to trial without an attorney or continuing to trial with an attorney originally hired to represent him but whom he no longer is able to pay. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Lucas
green
2 sentences2018If the record sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, ‘unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation’ [citation], the contention must be rejected.” (People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3d 210, 248 .) Thus, “[r]eviewing courts reverse convictions on direct appeal on the ground of incompetence of counsel only if the record on appeal demonstrates there could be no rational tactical purpose for counsel’s omissions.” (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 442 .) Minor has not met 2015If the record sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, ‘unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation’ [citation], the contention must be rejected.” (People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3d 210, 248 .) Thus, “[r]eviewing courts reverse 15 convictions on direct appeal on the ground of incompetence of counsel only if the record on appeal demonstrates there could be no rational tactical purpose for counsel’s omissions.” (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 442 .) Moreover, “[i] | 2 | 2015–2018 |
People v. Haskett
green
2 sentences2018If the record sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, ‘unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation’ [citation], the contention must be rejected.” (People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3d 210, 248 .) Thus, “[r]eviewing courts reverse convictions on direct appeal on the ground of incompetence of counsel only if the record on appeal demonstrates there could be no rational tactical purpose for counsel’s omissions.” (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 442 .) Minor has not met 2015If the record sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, ‘unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation’ [citation], the contention must be rejected.” (People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3d 210, 248 .) Thus, “[r]eviewing courts reverse 15 convictions on direct appeal on the ground of incompetence of counsel only if the record on appeal demonstrates there could be no rational tactical purpose for counsel’s omissions.” (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 442 .) Moreover, “[i] | 2 | 2015–2018 |
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence2015If the record sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, ‘unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation’ [citation], the contention must be rejected.” (People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3d 210, 248 .) Thus, “[r]eviewing courts reverse 15 convictions on direct appeal on the ground of incompetence of counsel only if the record on appeal demonstrates there could be no rational tactical purpose for counsel’s omissions.” (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 442 .) Moreover, “[i] | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Mayfield
red
1 sentence2015If the record sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, ‘unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation’ [citation], the contention must be rejected.” (People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3d 210, 248 .) Thus, “[r]eviewing courts reverse 15 convictions on direct appeal on the ground of incompetence of counsel only if the record on appeal demonstrates there could be no rational tactical purpose for counsel’s omissions.” (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 442 .) Moreover, “[i] | 1 | 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.