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 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hughes v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See also Hughes v. State, 148 Idaho 448, 464-65 , 224 P.3d 515, 531-32 (Ct.App.2009) (in an Estrada case, the existence of prejudice is. determined first and foremost from review of the PSE itself and court reference to its contents at the sentencing hearing). 3 In accord with the foregoing discussion, the district court did not err in concluding that Schultz did not support his ineffective assistance of counsel Estrada claim with the essential evidence needed to establish a prima facie case such that an evidentiary hearing on the claim was required. 2012See also Hughes v. State, 148 Idaho 448, 464-65 , 224 P.3d 515, 531-32 (Ct.App.2009) (in an Estrada case, the existence of prejudice is. determined first and foremost from review of the PSE itself and court reference to its contents at the sentencing hearing). 3 In accord with the foregoing discussion, the district court did not err in concluding that Schultz did not support his ineffective assistance of counsel Estrada claim with the essential evidence needed to establish a prima facie case such that an evidentiary hearing on the claim was required. | 2 | 2 |
Jeffrey Dane Murray v. Stategreen2 sentences2014The Idaho Supreme Court recently addressed an Estrada claim arising in a similar context in Murray v. State, 156 Idaho 159, 168 , 321 P.3d 709, 718 (2014). 2014The Idaho Supreme Court recently addressed an Estrada claim arising in a similar context in Murray v. State, 156 Idaho 159, 168 , 321 P.3d 709, 718 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
Missouri v. Fryegreen2 sentences2012See Missouri v. Frye, — U.S. ——, -, 132 S.Ct. 1399, 1408 , 182 L.Ed.2d 379 , -(2012). 2 .In Estrada , our Supreme Court recited the following facts establishing that the defendant did not want to participate in the PSE in the first instance: After accepting Estrada’s plea, the district court ordered a psychosexual evaluation of Estrada pursuant to Idaho Code section 18-8316. 2012See Missouri v. Frye, — U.S. ——, -, 132 S.Ct. 1399, 1408 , 182 L.Ed.2d 379 , -(2012). 2 .In Estrada , our Supreme Court recited the following facts establishing that the defendant did not want to participate in the PSE in the first instance: After accepting Estrada’s plea, the district court ordered a psychosexual evaluation of Estrada pursuant to Idaho Code section 18-8316. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Wadegreen2 sentences2006United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 224 , 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1931 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1156 (1967); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981). 2006United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 224 , 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1931 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1156 (1967); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Estrada v. State
green
2 sentences2014Estrada did not want to participate in the evaluation, but decided to do so based on his attorney’s statement that “we would not want the judge to consider your lack of cooperation to mean that you are not willing to comply with court orders.” Id. at 560 , 149 P.3d at 835 . 2014Estrada did not want to participate in the evaluation, but decided to do so based on his attorney’s statement that “we would not want the judge to consider your lack of cooperation to mean that you are not willing to comply with court orders.” Id. at 560 , 149 P.3d at 835 . | 2 | 2012–2014 |
State v. Ruth
green
2 sentences2006United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 224 , 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1931 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1156 (1967); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981). 2006United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 224 , 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1931 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1156 (1967); State v. Ruth, 102 Idaho 638 , 637 P.2d 415 (1981). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.