Strickland v. Washington test in California

5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2017 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
In Re Alvernazgreen cal · 1992 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2014 2 sentences 2014(Lafler v. Cooper (2012) __ U.S. __ [ 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1384 ] (Lafler); Missouri v. Frye (2012) __ U.S. __ [ 132 S.Ct. 1399, 1406-1407 ] (Frye); In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 933 (Alvernaz) [“The pleading––and plea bargaining––stage of a criminal proceeding is a critical stage in the criminal process at which a defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal and California Constitutions”]; In re Vargas (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1133 .) The familiar Strickland v. Washington test applies to claims of ineffective assistance arising in the plea bargai 2013(Lafler v. Cooper (2012) __ U.S. __ [ 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1384 ] (Lafler); Missouri v. Frye (2012) __ U.S. __ [ 132 S.Ct. 1399, 1406-1407 ] (Frye); In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 933 (Alvernaz) [“The pleading––and plea bargaining––stage of a criminal proceeding is a critical stage in the criminal process at which a defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal and California Constitutions”]; In re Vargas (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1133 .) The familiar Strickland v. Washington test applies to claims of ineffective assistance arising in the plea bargai	2	2
Strickland v. Washingtongreen scotus · 1984 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 1992–2014 2 sentences 2013This 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 (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 .) The first prong of the Strickland v. Washington standard is met 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 .) The second prong requires a showing of “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel‟s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. 2013A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (Strickland v. Washington, supra, at p. 694 .) We conclude that defendant cannot sustain his burden under either prong of the Strickland v. Washington test. 9 A. Voluntary Intoxication as Having an Effect on the Defense of Imperfect Self-defense Defendant argues he was prejudiced by the jury instructions, claiming the jury was prevented from considering whether his voluntary intoxication affected his belief in the need to use deadly force to save his life.	1	4
People v. Popegreen cal · 1979 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 2 sentences 1992(Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 687, 693-694 [80 L.Ed.2d at pp. 693, 697-699]; accord People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 425 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 , 2 A.L.R.4th 1 ].) “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 694 [80 L.Ed.2d at pp. 697-698].) We need not determine whether counsel’s actions were deficient because, in our view, defendant has failed to show prejudice under the Strickland v. Washington standard (supra, 466 U.S. 668 ). 1992(Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 687, 693-694 [80 L.Ed.2d at pp. 693, 697-699]; accord People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 425 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 , 2 A.L.R.4th 1 ].) “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 694 [80 L.Ed.2d at pp. 697-698].) We need not determine whether counsel’s actions were deficient because, in our view, defendant has failed to show prejudice under the Strickland v. Washington standard (supra, 466 U.S. 668 ).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
Lafler v. Cooper green scotus · 2012 2 sentences 2014(Lafler v. Cooper (2012) __ U.S. __ [ 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1384 ] (Lafler); Missouri v. Frye (2012) __ U.S. __ [ 132 S.Ct. 1399, 1406-1407 ] (Frye); In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 933 (Alvernaz) [“The pleading––and plea bargaining––stage of a criminal proceeding is a critical stage in the criminal process at which a defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal and California Constitutions”]; In re Vargas (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1133 .) The familiar Strickland v. Washington test applies to claims of ineffective assistance arising in the plea bargai 2013(Lafler v. Cooper (2012) __ U.S. __ [ 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1384 ] (Lafler); Missouri v. Frye (2012) __ U.S. __ [ 132 S.Ct. 1399, 1406-1407 ] (Frye); In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 933 (Alvernaz) [“The pleading––and plea bargaining––stage of a criminal proceeding is a critical stage in the criminal process at which a defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal and California Constitutions”]; In re Vargas (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1133 .) The familiar Strickland v. Washington test applies to claims of ineffective assistance arising in the plea bargai	2	2013–2014
Missouri v. Frye green scotus · 2012 2 sentences 2014(Lafler v. Cooper (2012) __ U.S. __ [ 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1384 ] (Lafler); Missouri v. Frye (2012) __ U.S. __ [ 132 S.Ct. 1399, 1406-1407 ] (Frye); In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 933 (Alvernaz) [“The pleading––and plea bargaining––stage of a criminal proceeding is a critical stage in the criminal process at which a defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal and California Constitutions”]; In re Vargas (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1133 .) The familiar Strickland v. Washington test applies to claims of ineffective assistance arising in the plea bargai 2013(Lafler v. Cooper (2012) __ U.S. __ [ 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1384 ] (Lafler); Missouri v. Frye (2012) __ U.S. __ [ 132 S.Ct. 1399, 1406-1407 ] (Frye); In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 933 (Alvernaz) [“The pleading––and plea bargaining––stage of a criminal proceeding is a critical stage in the criminal process at which a defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal and California Constitutions”]; In re Vargas (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1133 .) The familiar Strickland v. Washington test applies to claims of ineffective assistance arising in the plea bargai	2	2013–2014
People v. Williams green cal · 2013 2 sentences 2014(Lafler, supra, 132 S.Ct. at p. 1384 ; Frye, supra, 132 S.Ct. at p. 1405 ; Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 ; Alvernaz, supra, 2 Cal.4th at pp. 936-937.) Under Strickland, to obtain relief a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance fell beneath an objective standard of reasonableness, and that counsel’s deficient performance “subjected the defendant to prejudice, i.e., there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s failings, the result would have been more favorable to the defendant.” (Alvernaz, at pp. 936-937; Lafler, at p. 1384; People v. Williams (2013) 56 2013(Lafler, supra, 132 S.Ct. at p. 1384 ; Frye, supra, 132 S.Ct. at p. 1405 ; Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 ; Alvernaz, supra, 2 Cal.4th at pp. 936-937.) Under Strickland, to obtain relief a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance fell beneath an objective standard of reasonableness, and that counsel’s deficient performance “subjected the defendant to prejudice, i.e., there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s failings, the result would have been more favorable to the defendant.” (Alvernaz, at pp. 936-937; Lafler, at p. 1384; People v. Williams (2013) 56	2	2013–2014
In re Vargas green calctapp · 2000 2 sentences 2014(Lafler v. Cooper (2012) __ U.S. __ [ 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1384 ] (Lafler); Missouri v. Frye (2012) __ U.S. __ [ 132 S.Ct. 1399, 1406-1407 ] (Frye); In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 933 (Alvernaz) [“The pleading––and plea bargaining––stage of a criminal proceeding is a critical stage in the criminal process at which a defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal and California Constitutions”]; In re Vargas (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1133 .) The familiar Strickland v. Washington test applies to claims of ineffective assistance arising in the plea bargai 2013(Lafler v. Cooper (2012) __ U.S. __ [ 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1384 ] (Lafler); Missouri v. Frye (2012) __ U.S. __ [ 132 S.Ct. 1399, 1406-1407 ] (Frye); In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 933 (Alvernaz) [“The pleading––and plea bargaining––stage of a criminal proceeding is a critical stage in the criminal process at which a defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal and California Constitutions”]; In re Vargas (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1133 .) The familiar Strickland v. Washington test applies to claims of ineffective assistance arising in the plea bargai	2	2013–2014
People v. Mendoza Tello green cal · 1997 1 sentence 2017(People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266 .) Moreover, we believe defendant has made an insufficient showing of prejudice to satisfy the Strickland v. Washington standard.	1	2017–2017
People v. Lucas green cal · 1995 1 sentence 2013This 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 (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 .) The first prong of the Strickland v. Washington standard is met 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 .) The second prong requires a showing of “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel‟s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.	1	2013–2013

Where else courts name it

TX 95 (1988–2026) AL 38 (1986–2016) GA 28 (1998–2023) MO 14 (1987–2023) KY 13 (2009–2025) IL 13 (1993–2025) NJ 11 (1994–2024) MS 9 (1987–2026) OH 9 (1998–2026) LA 8 (1986–2021) FL 7 (1988–2008) UT 7 (2001–2022) TN 7 (2001–2025) OK 7 (1988–2006) CA 5 (1992–2017) NE 5 (2017–2023) KS 3 (2002–2010) MD 3 (2001–2011) PA 2 (1987–2015) DE 2 (2024–2026) SC 2 (2009–2026) IA 2 (2014–2021) CT 2 (1997–1997) NC 2 (2006–2013) IN 2 (1994–2019) VA 2 (2017–2017) SD 2 (1987–1994)

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