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.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2018 0 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. Dennisgreen2 sentences2018On a *117 motion for a new trial, the defendant has the burden of showing both the ineffectiveness of counsel and the prejudice it caused. ( People v. Dennis (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 863 , 872, 223 Cal.Rptr. 236 .) Nevertheless, Watts did not submit a declaration or affidavit from defense counsel regarding his decision not to call Little Chris as a trial witness. 2018On a *117 motion for a new trial, the defendant has the burden of showing both the ineffectiveness of counsel and the prejudice it caused. ( People v. Dennis (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 863 , 872, 223 Cal.Rptr. 236 .) Nevertheless, Watts did not submit a declaration or affidavit from defense counsel regarding his decision not to call Little Chris as a trial witness. | 3 | 5 |
People v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2018(See People v. Jackson (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 499 , 507, 231 Cal.Rptr. 889 [upholding denial of new trial motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel because defendant did not submit affidavits or testimony]; People v. Dennis , supra , 177 Cal.App.3d at p. 873 , 223 Cal.Rptr. 236 [defendant must establish "by affidavit, oral testimony or reference to the trial record" that trial counsel was ineffective].) "Reviewing courts will reverse convictions on the ground of inadequate counsel only if the record on appeal affirmatively discloses that counsel had no rational tactical purpose for his 2018(See People v. Jackson (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 499 , 507, 231 Cal.Rptr. 889 [upholding denial of new trial motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel because defendant did not submit affidavits or testimony]; People v. Dennis , supra , 177 Cal.App.3d at p. 873 , 223 Cal.Rptr. 236 [defendant must establish "by affidavit, oral testimony or reference to the trial record" that trial counsel was ineffective].) "Reviewing courts will reverse convictions on the ground of inadequate counsel only if the record on appeal affirmatively discloses that counsel had no rational tactical purpose for his | 3 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Cox
green
2 sentences2018As the trial court noted, "based on my observation of the way [defense counsel] conducted this trial ..., there is no basis for me to decide he was basically ineffective as to how he basically tried the case." Furthermore, ineffective assistance of counsel claims "must be supported by declarations or other proffered testimony establishing both the substance of the omitted evidence and its likelihood for exonerating the accused." ( People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d. 618 , 662, 280 Cal.Rptr. 692 , 809 P.2d 351 .) Thus, Watts's failure to provide a declaration or affidavit from defense counsel to su 2018As the trial court noted, "based on my observation of the way [defense counsel] conducted this trial ..., there is no basis for me to decide he was basically ineffective as to how he basically tried the case." Furthermore, ineffective assistance of counsel claims "must be supported by declarations or other proffered testimony establishing both the substance of the omitted evidence and its likelihood for exonerating the accused." ( People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d. 618 , 662, 280 Cal.Rptr. 692 , 809 P.2d 351 .) Thus, Watts's failure to provide a declaration or affidavit from defense counsel to su | 2 | 2017–2018 |
People v. Oliver
green
2 sentences2017On a motion for a new trial, the defendant has the burden of showing both the ineffectiveness of counsel and the prejudice it caused. 15People v. Mayorga, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at page 940 held that “new trials may be ordered for nonstatutory reasons when an error has occurred resulting in the denial of defendant’s right to a fair trial, and the defendant has had no earlier opportunity to raise the issue.” (See People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572 , 582–583; People v. Davis (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 106, 110 ; People v. Oliver (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 747 , 751–752.) 23 (People v. Dennis (1986) 177 2017On a motion for a new trial, the defendant has the burden of showing both the ineffectiveness of counsel and the prejudice it caused. 15People v. Mayorga, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at page 940 held that “new trials may be ordered for nonstatutory reasons when an error has occurred resulting in the denial of defendant’s right to a fair trial, and the defendant has had no earlier opportunity to raise the issue.” (See People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572 , 582–583; People v. Davis (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 106, 110 ; People v. Oliver (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 747 , 751–752.) 23 (People v. Dennis (1986) 177 | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Mayorga
green
2 sentences2017On a motion for a new trial, the defendant has the burden of showing both the ineffectiveness of counsel and the prejudice it caused. 15People v. Mayorga, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at page 940 held that “new trials may be ordered for nonstatutory reasons when an error has occurred resulting in the denial of defendant’s right to a fair trial, and the defendant has had no earlier opportunity to raise the issue.” (See People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572 , 582–583; People v. Davis (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 106, 110 ; People v. Oliver (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 747 , 751–752.) 23 (People v. Dennis (1986) 177 2017On a motion for a new trial, the defendant has the burden of showing both the ineffectiveness of counsel and the prejudice it caused. 15People v. Mayorga, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at page 940 held that “new trials may be ordered for nonstatutory reasons when an error has occurred resulting in the denial of defendant’s right to a fair trial, and the defendant has had no earlier opportunity to raise the issue.” (See People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572 , 582–583; People v. Davis (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 106, 110 ; People v. Oliver (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 747 , 751–752.) 23 (People v. Dennis (1986) 177 | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Davis
green
2 sentences2017On a motion for a new trial, the defendant has the burden of showing both the ineffectiveness of counsel and the prejudice it caused. 15People v. Mayorga, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at page 940 held that “new trials may be ordered for nonstatutory reasons when an error has occurred resulting in the denial of defendant’s right to a fair trial, and the defendant has had no earlier opportunity to raise the issue.” (See People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572 , 582–583; People v. Davis (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 106, 110 ; People v. Oliver (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 747 , 751–752.) 23 (People v. Dennis (1986) 177 2017On a motion for a new trial, the defendant has the burden of showing both the ineffectiveness of counsel and the prejudice it caused. 15People v. Mayorga, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at page 940 held that “new trials may be ordered for nonstatutory reasons when an error has occurred resulting in the denial of defendant’s right to a fair trial, and the defendant has had no earlier opportunity to raise the issue.” (See People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572 , 582–583; People v. Davis (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 106, 110 ; People v. Oliver (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 747 , 751–752.) 23 (People v. Dennis (1986) 177 | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Fosselman
green
2 sentences2017On a motion for a new trial, the defendant has the burden of showing both the ineffectiveness of counsel and the prejudice it caused. 15People v. Mayorga, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at page 940 held that “new trials may be ordered for nonstatutory reasons when an error has occurred resulting in the denial of defendant’s right to a fair trial, and the defendant has had no earlier opportunity to raise the issue.” (See People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572 , 582–583; People v. Davis (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 106, 110 ; People v. Oliver (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 747 , 751–752.) 23 (People v. Dennis (1986) 177 2017On a motion for a new trial, the defendant has the burden of showing both the ineffectiveness of counsel and the prejudice it caused. 15People v. Mayorga, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at page 940 held that “new trials may be ordered for nonstatutory reasons when an error has occurred resulting in the denial of defendant’s right to a fair trial, and the defendant has had no earlier opportunity to raise the issue.” (See People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572 , 582–583; People v. Davis (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 106, 110 ; People v. Oliver (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 747 , 751–752.) 23 (People v. Dennis (1986) 177 | 2 | 2017–2017 |
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.