Web6 Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521 (2003) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)); see also United States v. Dowling, 458 F. App’x 396, 397–98 (5th Cir. 2012) (noting that Strickland governs ineffective assistance claims based on counsel’s failure to raise a motion to suppress). 7 Garza v. WebStrickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); Self v. State, 145 Idaho 578, 580, 181 P.3d 504, 506 (Ct. App. 2007). To establish a deficiency, the petitioner has the burden ... In support of this conclusion, the district court referenced Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), which held that admission of a confession by a ...
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
WebO'Connor, S. D. & Supreme Court Of The United States. (1983) U.S. Reports: Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668. [Periodical] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, … Web2 days ago · Strickland v. Washington, which requires a defendant to “show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). I, however, would hold that the state court unreasonably applied this clearly established federal law. hubcaps for 2011 ford fusion
Appellate Case: 22-7045 Document: 010110842664 Date …
WebDefendants who seek to challenge the voluntary and intelligent character of their guilty pleas on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel must establish that defense counsel's advice was not within the standard set forth in Strickland v Washington (466 US 668 [1984]) (see Hill, 474 US at 58). WebMay 7, 2008 · Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). If the defendant cannot meet one of Strickland 's prongs, we do not need to address the other prong. Holladay v. Haley, 209 F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir. 2000). WebPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, October 3, 2024. [*1] The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leonel Pinilla, Appellant. Christina A. Swarns, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Emma L. Shreefter of counsel), for appellant. hub caps for 2010 toyota matrix