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 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 112 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Mata v. State.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mata v. State Anchor | green | “it is not sufficient that appellant show, with the benefit of hindsight, that his counsel's actions or omissions during trial were merely of questionable competence.” | 36 |
| 2 | Lopez v. State | green | “when such direct evidence is not available, we will assume that counsel had a strategy if any reasonably sound strategic motivation can be imagined.” | 29 |
| 3 | Robertson v. State | green | “isolated instances in the record reflecting errors of omission or commission do not render counsel's performance ineffective, nor can ineffective assistance of counsel be established by isolating one portion of trial counsel's performance for examination.” | 24 |
| 4 | McFarland v. State | green | “judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential” | 12 |
| 5 | Robertson v. State | green | “right to effective assistance of counsel merely ensures the right to reasonably effective not perfect assistance.” | 11 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.