§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Ivan Calaff, Appellant.

Brief

75 Cited authorities

  1. Bell v. Cone

    535 U.S. 685 (2002)   Cited 9,809 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state court adjudication that “correctly identified the principles announced [by the Supreme Court] as those governing the analysis ... was [not] contrary to ... clearly established law”

  2. Anders v. California

    386 U.S. 738 (1967)   Cited 77,730 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when counsel determines that a criminal defendant's case is "wholly frivolous," counsel must "so advise the court and request permission to withdraw"

  3. Smith v. Robbins

    528 U.S. 259 (2000)   Cited 8,540 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the proper standard for evaluating claim that appellate counsel was ineffective ... is that enunciated in Strickland"

  4. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 60,244 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

  5. Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins

    560 U.S. 370 (2010)   Cited 2,848 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal courts can "deny writs of habeas corpus under § 2254 by engaging in de novo review when it is unclear whether AEDPA deference applies"

  6. Mathews v. Eldridge

    424 U.S. 319 (1976)   Cited 15,714 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a procedure based on written submissions was adequate because it included safeguards against mistake including that the agency informed the recipient of its tentative assessment and the evidence supporting it and an opportunity was then afforded the recipient to submit additional evidence "enabling him to challenge directly the accuracy of information in his file as well as the correctness of the agency's tentative conclusions"

  7. Faretta v. California

    422 U.S. 806 (1975)   Cited 12,534 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial

  8. United States v. Cronic

    466 U.S. 648 (1984)   Cited 7,359 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Holding defendant is constructively denied counsel during critical stage of criminal proceedings where counsel, inter alia, "fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing"

  9. Evitts v. Lucey

    469 U.S. 387 (1985)   Cited 4,485 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the right to effective assistance of counsel includes the right to effective assistance of appellate counsel

  10. Griffin v. Illinois

    351 U.S. 12 (1956)   Cited 3,152 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that preventing an indigent defendant from appealing his conviction due to his failure to pay for a trial transcript is unconstitutional

  11. Section 606.5 - Duties of counsel with respect to representation of defendants in criminal actions

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 606.5   Cited 27 times

    (a) Duties of assigned or retained counsel. (1) It shall be the duty of counsel assigned to or retained for the defense of a defendant in a criminal action or proceeding to represent defendant in the trial court until the action or proceeding has been terminated in that court, and to comply with the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) or (d)(2) of this section, after which the duties of assigned counsel shall be ended. (2) It shall be the duty of counsel assigned to prosecute or defend an appeal on behalf