Citation network
Penson Vs. Ohio
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 29, 1988
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
-
U.S. 75 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Penson v. OhioSearch
-
U.S. 75 (1988) Penson v. OhioSearch
-
adequate representation on appeal by the Ohio Court of Appeals' failure to follow the procedures set forth in Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
In cases such as this, it is inappropriate to apply either the lack of prejudice standard of Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
U. S. 668 , or the harmless error analysis of Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 89 . Page 488 U. S. 77 JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court. In Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief for Petitioner in Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
certiorari, 484 U.S. 1059 (1988), and now reverse. II Approximately a quarter of a century ago, in Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Four years later, in Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Anders itself, 386 U.S. at 386 U. S. 745 , and was again emphasized last Term. In our decision in McCoy v. CourtSearch
-
This requirement was plainly stated in Ellis v. UnitedSearch
-
Kimmelman v. MorrisonSearch
-
a criminal defendant will be able adequately to test the government's case, for, as Justice Sutherland wrote in Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
not forgone and that substantial legal and factual arguments are not inadvertently passed over. As we stated in Evitts v. LuceySearch
-
indicates both that petitioner has failed to show prejudice under Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
U. S. 668 (1984), and also that any error was harmless under Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
the services of an attorney Page 488 U. S. 87 devoted solely to the interests of his client. Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 466 U. S. 692 . Our decision in United States v. CronicSearch
-
U.S. at 386 U. S. 23 , and n. 8. And more recently, in Satterwhite v. TexasSearch
-
The present case is unlike a case in which counsel fails to press a particular argument on appeal, cf. Jones v. BarnesSearch
-
Tr. of Record in Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Nichols v. GagnonSearch
-
of either counsel's failure to file an Anders brief or the court's failure to appoint new counsel. Cf. Kimmelman v. MorrisonSearch
-
have reached a like conclusion when faced with similar denials of appellate counsel. See United States ex rel. Thomas v. O'LearySearch
-
Freels v. HillsSearch
-
Jenkins v. CoombeSearch
-
Cannon v. BerrySearch
-
Sanders v. ClarkeSearch
-
Lockhart v. McCotterSearch
-
Griffin v. WestSearch
-
to emphasize that nothing in the Court's opinion forecloses the possibility that a mere technical violation of Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
The Court has construed this language to include not only the right to assistance of counsel at trial, Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
U. S. 335 (1963), but also to the assistance of counsel on appeal. Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
simply to the assistance of counsel, but also to the effective assistance of counsel, both at trial, see United States v. CronicSearch
-
U. S. 668 (1984), and on appeal, see Evitts v. LuceySearch
-
S. 616 (1974). The Court today loses sight of this, and instead seeks to engraft onto our decision in Anders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
See Polk County v. DodsonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Penson v. OhioSearch
-
of Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
of Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial