Citation network
Hill Vs. Lockhart
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 18, 1985
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 52 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Hill v. LockhartSearch
-
U.S. 52 (1985) Hill v. LockhartSearch
-
within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases. The two-part standard adopted in Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
the result reached in the present case and that reached by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Strader v. GarrisonSearch
-
Boykin v. AlabamaSearch
-
Machibroda v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 759 , 397 U. S. 771 (1970). As we explained in Tollett v. HendersonSearch
-
Id. at 411 U. S. 267 . Our concern in McMann v. RichardsonSearch
-
Reece v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 45 (1932). Two Terms ago, in Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
Id. at 466 U. S. 691 . Although our decision in Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
requirement in Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
of counsel will serve the fundamental interest in the finality of guilty pleas we identified in United States v. TimmreckSearch
-
Id. at 441 U. S. 784 (quoting United States v. SmithSearch
-
F.2d 521, 528-529 (CA7 1971) (Stevens, J., dissenting)). We hold, therefore, that the two-part Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel. In the context of guilty pleas, the first half of the Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
test is nothing more than a restatement of the standard of attorney competence already set forth in Tollett v. HendersonSearch
-
supra, and Page 474 U. S. 59 McMann v. RichardsonSearch
-
inquiry will depend largely on whether the affirmative defense likely would have succeeded at trial. See, e.g., Evans v. MeyerSearch
-
As we explained in Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
because in the present case we conclude that petitioner's allegations are insufficient to satisfy the Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
necessary to satisfy the second half of the Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
Several Courts of Appeals have adopted this general approach. See Thomas v. LockhartSearch
-
United States v. GavilanSearch
-
Beans v. BlackSearch
-
Mitchell v. ScullySearch
-
Evans v. MeyerSearch
-
McMann v. RichardsonSearch
-
demanded by the Sixth Amendment. Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Hill v. LockhartSearch
-
Strader v. GarrisonSearch
-
Boykin v. AlabamaSearch
-
Reece v. GeorgiaSearch
-
United States v. SmithSearch
-
of the Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
the Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
See Thomas v. LockhartSearch
-
United States v. GavilanSearch
-
the Sixth Amendment. Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial