46 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,593 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"
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,625 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”
Jones v. Barnes
463 U.S. 745 (1983) Cited 11,144 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that it was not ineffective assistance for appellate counsel to decline to make every nonfrivolous argument requested by the defendant
Kimmelman v. Morrison
477 U.S. 365 (1986) Cited 5,804 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that, if trial counsel's failure to litigate a constitutional claim competently "is the principal allegation of ineffectiveness," petitioner must also prove that the underlying constitutional claim is meritorious
Mickens v. Taylor
535 U.S. 162 (2002) Cited 1,860 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that he denial of habeas relief must be affirmed where petitioner fails "to establish that the conflict of interest adversely affected his counsel's performance"
People v. Stultz
2 N.Y.3d 277 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 3,231 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding "a defendant's showing of prejudice [to be] a significant but not indispensable element in assessing meaningful representation," focusing instead on "the fairness of the proceedings as a whole"
People v. Benevento
91 N.Y.2d 708 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 4,212 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."
People v. Baldi
54 N.Y.2d 137 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 5,974 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.
Southern Union Co. v. United States
567 U.S. 343 (2012) Cited 348 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule in Apprendi applies to cases where significant criminal fines are imposed as well as where the sentence is imprisonment or death
People v. Rivera
71 N.Y.2d 705 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 1,828 times
Holding petitioner who failed to show "the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations" for counsels' alleged shortcoming did not have viable claim to constitutionally ineffective counsel

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

46 Cited authorities

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"

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”

Holding that it was not ineffective assistance for appellate counsel to decline to make every nonfrivolous argument requested by the defendant

Holding that, if trial counsel's failure to litigate a constitutional claim competently "is the principal allegation of ineffectiveness," petitioner must also prove that the underlying constitutional claim is meritorious

Holding that he denial of habeas relief must be affirmed where petitioner fails "to establish that the conflict of interest adversely affected his counsel's performance"

Holding "a defendant's showing of prejudice [to be] a significant but not indispensable element in assessing meaningful representation," focusing instead on "the fairness of the proceedings as a whole"

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."

In Baldi, the New York State Court of Appeals expressly applied the right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal Constitution.

Holding that the rule in Apprendi applies to cases where significant criminal fines are imposed as well as where the sentence is imprisonment or death

Holding petitioner who failed to show "the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations" for counsels' alleged shortcoming did not have viable claim to constitutionally ineffective counsel