§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Dwight Giles, Appellant.

Brief

47 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 158,768 times   176 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"

  2. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 26,644 times   100 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”

  3. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 16,615 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[w]hen a judge inflicts punishment that the jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts ‘which the law makes essential to the punishment,’ and the judge exceeds his proper authority”

  4. Coleman v. Thompson

    501 U.S. 722 (1991)   Cited 26,241 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding in relevant part that federal habeas review of a procedurally defaulted claim is barred "unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law"

  5. Cunningham v. California

    549 U.S. 270 (2007)   Cited 4,292 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant"

  6. Rompilla v. Beard

    545 U.S. 374 (2005)   Cited 2,976 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that counsel's minimal investigation was deficient even though the defendant was "actively obstructive by sending counsel off on false leads"

  7. Pennsylvania v. Finley

    481 U.S. 551 (1987)   Cited 6,999 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that States need not provide appointed counsel in post-conviction proceedings

  8. People v. Benevento

    91 N.Y.2d 708 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 4,215 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-14 (1998), the New York Court of Appeals held that "meaningful representation" included a prejudice component which focuses on the "fairness of the process as a whole rather than [any] particular impact on the outcome of the case."

  9. People v. Baldi

    54 N.Y.2d 137 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 5,975 times   6 Legal Analyses
    In Baldi, the New York State Court of Appeals expressly applied the right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal Constitution.

  10. People v. Caban

    5 N.Y.3d 143 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 1,638 times
    Holding conspirators' statements admissible as verbal acts to prove existence of conspiracy but not, absent independent evidence of the conspiracy, for their truth

  11. Section 600.10 - Format and content of records, appendices and briefs

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 600.10   Cited 11 times

    (a) Form and size. (1) Generally; paper and page size. Records, appendices and briefs shall be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black on white copy and shall be on a good grade of white, opaque, unglazed recycled paper that satisfies the requirements of subdivision (e) of this section. Paper shall measure vertically 11 inches on the bound edge and horizontally 81/2 inches. The clerk may refuse to accept for filing a paper which is not legible or otherwise does not comply