No. 23-6800
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
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 Feldman — Appellate Advocates, Petitioner
Samuel Raphael Feldman — Appellate Advocates, Petitioner
William Geoffrey Kastin — Appellate Advocates, Petitioner
William Geoffrey Kastin — Appellate Advocates, Petitioner
New York
John M. Castellano — Queens County District Attorney's Office, Respondent
John M. Castellano — Queens County District Attorney's Office, Respondent