Effective Assistance

SEE ALSO HABEAS CORPUS

SEE 1998 BRIEF BANK INDEX

Whether Norris’s counsel rendered ineffective assistance. (Curtis Darryl Norris, October 19, 2003)

Whether the district court correctly concluded that, based on Texas precedent and trial evidence, the failure of Schaetzle’s appellate counsel to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the retaliation conviction constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. (David Schaetzle, April 9, 2003)*

Whether counsel’s failure to object to a sentence that exceeded the statutory maximum for Price’s simple drug possession offense deprived Price of effective assistance of counsel. (James Edward Price, May 11, 2001)

Whether counsel’s deficient representation, which caused Price to be convicted of an offense not charged in the indictment, deprived him of effective assistance of counsel. (James Edward Price, May 11, 2001)

Whether the district court correctly concluded that counsel’s failure to object to clearly inadmissible hearsay evidence deprived Gochicoa of his right to effective assistance of counsel. (Pedro L. Gochicoa, Appellee, November 17, 1999)*

Whether the district court correctly concluded that defense counsel’s failure to explain the illusory, valueless promise to Montoya constituted ineffective assistance of counsel that rendered Montoya’s plea involuntary. (Jesse Montoya, Appellee, October 29, 1999)*

Whether the district court’s judgment should be affirmed because Gochicoa has satisfied the test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). (Pedro L. Gochicoa, Appellee, November 17, 1999)*

Whether Davidson’s counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to prepare adequately for trial. (Benjamin Davidson Jr., June 10, 1998)*

Whether De la Rosa’s guilty plea should be vacated because his counsel failed to render constitutionally effective assistance. (Raymundo De la Rosa, April 10, 1998)

Whether the district court erred in denying Creel’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. (Lynn Murphy Creel, November 13, 1997)*

Whether Rich’s appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise the issue that the only evidence supporting Rich’s money-laundering conviction was Rich’s uncorroborated statement. (William C. Rich, April 14, 1997)*

Whether the trial attorney’s failure to object to the sufficiency of the evidence used to support a sentencing enhancement deprived Martinez-Cortez of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. (Antonio Martinez-Cortez, October 23, 1995)*

Whether counsel’s failure to request a hearing on the motion for shock probation—a motion that can be granted only after a hearing—deprived Hernandez of his right to effective assistance of counsel. (Cayetano Hernandez, February 22, 1995)*