No. 23-6800

Jorge Espinosa v. New York

Lower Court: New York
Docketed: 2024-02-21
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: clear-cut-and-dispositive constitutional-right criminal-defense due-process error-and-prejudice ineffective-assistance-of-counsel legal-error prejudice-analysis single-error Strickland strickland-standard
Key Terms:
Environmental AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2024-03-22
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether all ineffective assistance of counsel claims are assessed under the Strickland error-and-prejudice rule, or whether such claims based on a single error by counsel require an additional more demanding showing that the error involved an issue that was 'clear-cut and dispositive'

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether all ineffective assistance of counsel claims are assessed under the Strickland error-and-prejudice rule, or whether such claims based on a single error by counsel require an additional more demanding showing that the error involved an issue that was “clear-cut and dispositive.” i

Docket Entries

2024-03-25
Petition DENIED.
2024-03-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/22/2024.
2024-03-05
Waiver of right of respondent New York to respond filed.
2024-02-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 22, 2024)

Attorneys

Jorge Espinosa
Samuel Raphael FeldmanAppellate Advocates, Petitioner
Samuel Raphael FeldmanAppellate Advocates, Petitioner
William Geoffrey KastinAppellate Advocates, Petitioner
William Geoffrey KastinAppellate Advocates, Petitioner
New York
John M. CastellanoQueens County District Attorney's Office, Respondent
John M. CastellanoQueens County District Attorney's Office, Respondent