18 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,997 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"
United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (2005) Cited 25,398 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,657 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”
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (2004) Cited 16,619 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”
Hill v. Lockhart
474 U.S. 52 (1985) Cited 20,024 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Strickland claim can be brought to challenge a guilty plea, but rejecting the claim at issue
Almendarez-Torres v. United States
523 U.S. 224 (1998) Cited 6,538 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that the fact of a prior conviction is not an element of an offense even when it increases a defendant's statutory maximum term of imprisonment
Roe v. Flores-Ortega
528 U.S. 470 (2000) Cited 5,730 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding in criminal habeas context that counsel's failure to file a timely appeal is presumptively prejudicial, with no need for a "further showing from the defendant of the merits of his underlying claims"
Polk County v. Dodson
454 U.S. 312 (1981) Cited 9,248 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a public defender does not act "under color of state law" because he "works under canons of professional responsibility that mandate his exercise of independent judgment on behalf of the client" and because there is an "assumption that counsel will be free of state control"
U.S. v. Natanel
938 F.2d 302 (1st Cir. 1991) Cited 381 times
Holding that, after defendant's acquittal on several counts, counsel made a reasonable "gamble" by not giving a closing argument on a count separately submitted to jury
U.S. v. Colon-Torres
382 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2004) Cited 51 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that remand for factfinding was warranted where there were "worrisome indications" that an attorney-client conflict existed because the attorney may have been "absorbed in defending his own performance"
Section 2255 - Federal custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence
28 U.S.C. § 2255 Cited 129,482 times 129 Legal Analyses
Adopting one-year limitations period for §2255 motions
Section 841 - Prohibited acts A
21 U.S.C. § 841 Cited 90,999 times 147 Legal Analyses
In § 841 prosecutions, then, it is the fact that the doctor issued an unauthorized prescription that renders his or her conduct wrongful, not the fact of the dispensation itself.
Section 846 - Attempt and conspiracy
21 U.S.C. § 846 Cited 44,046 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding each conspirator responsible for the quantity of drugs distributed by the conspiracy
Section 851 - Proceedings to establish prior convictions
21 U.S.C. § 851 Cited 6,834 times 10 Legal Analyses
Describing hearing as applying to resolve "any issues raised by the [defendant's] response which would except the [defendant] from increased punishment"

Torivio-Arias v. United States of America

18 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 the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory

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 “[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”

Holding that a Strickland claim can be brought to challenge a guilty plea, but rejecting the claim at issue

Holding that the fact of a prior conviction is not an element of an offense even when it increases a defendant's statutory maximum term of imprisonment

Holding in criminal habeas context that counsel's failure to file a timely appeal is presumptively prejudicial, with no need for a "further showing from the defendant of the merits of his underlying claims"

Holding that a public defender does not act "under color of state law" because he "works under canons of professional responsibility that mandate his exercise of independent judgment on behalf of the client" and because there is an "assumption that counsel will be free of state control"

Holding that, after defendant's acquittal on several counts, counsel made a reasonable "gamble" by not giving a closing argument on a count separately submitted to jury

Finding that remand for factfinding was warranted where there were "worrisome indications" that an attorney-client conflict existed because the attorney may have been "absorbed in defending his own performance"

Adopting one-year limitations period for §2255 motions

In § 841 prosecutions, then, it is the fact that the doctor issued an unauthorized prescription that renders his or her conduct wrongful, not the fact of the dispensation itself.

Holding each conspirator responsible for the quantity of drugs distributed by the conspiracy

Describing hearing as applying to resolve "any issues raised by the [defendant's] response which would except the [defendant] from increased punishment"