Citation network
Evitts Vs. Lucey
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 21, 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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 387 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Evitts v. LuceySearch
-
U.S. 387 (1985) Evitts v. LuceySearch
-
with due process of law if the appellant does not have the effective assistance of an attorney. The promise of Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
that a criminal defendant has a right to counsel on his first appeal as of right -- like the promise of Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
Process Clause. Pp. 469 U. S. 400 -401. (c) Under any reasonable interpretation of the line drawn in Ross v. MoffittSearch
-
Clause, respondent's appeal was an appeal as of right, thus triggering the right to counsel recognized in Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
no bearing on the Commonwealth's actions in this case because the constitutional requirements recognized in Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 12 (the transcript of the trial is a prerequisite to a decision on the merits of an appeal), Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
C.J., joined, post, p. 469 U. S. 406 . JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
See England v. SpaldingSearch
-
case to the District Court for determination whether respondent had a claim under the Equal Protection Clause. Lucey v. SeaboldSearch
-
On January 12, 1984, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Lucey v. KavanaughSearch
-
the content of appropriate standards for judging claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Cf. Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
among those safeguards is the right to counsel, see Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
to counsel, created by the Sixth Amendment and applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, see Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
U. S. 335 , 372 U. S. 344 (1963), comprehends the right to effective assistance of counsel. See Cuyler v. SullivanSearch
-
States to grant appeals as of right to criminal defendants seeking to review alleged trial court errors. McKane v. DurstonSearch
-
Eskridge v. WashingtonSearch
-
for appellate consideration on the merits. See Griffin, supra, at 351 U. S. 20 . Therefore, Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. at 372 U. S. 358 . This right to counsel is limited to the first appeal as of right, see Ross v. MoffittSearch
-
and the attorney need not advance every argument, regardless of merit, urged by the appellant, see Jones v. BarnesSearch
-
But the attorney must be available to assist in preparing and submitting a brief to the appellate court, Swenson v. BoslerSearch
-
rather than a mere friend of the court assisting in a detached evaluation of the appellant's claim. See Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Entsminger v. IowaSearch
-
U. S. 748 (1967). B Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
Id. at 372 U. S. 340 , quoting Betts v. BradySearch
-
Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
Herring v. NewSearch
-
McMann v. RichardsonSearch
-
to be used in assessing claims that trial counsel failed to provide effective representation. See United States v. CronicSearch
-
at trial applies to every criminal prosecution, without regard to whether counsel is retained or appointed. See Cuyler v. PageSearch
-
This result is Page 469 U. S. 397 hardly novel. The petitioners in both Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 738 (1967), and Entsminger v. IowaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial