Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Custis Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 28, 1994

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

71 entries 7 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Tucker US Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1972
  2. Powell Vs. Alabama US Supreme Court · Nov 07, 1932
  3. Barefoot Vs. Estelle US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1983
  4. United States Vs. Culbert US Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1978
  5. Betts Vs. Brady US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1942
    Relied / Followed
  6. United States Vs. Addonizio US Supreme Court · Jun 04, 1979
  7. Parke Vs. Raley US Supreme Court · Oct 05, 1992
  8. Custis v. United
    Search
  9. States - 511 U.S. 485 (1994) October Term, 1993 Syllabus Custis V. United
    Search
  10. Lewis v. United
    Search
  11. did not allow collateral attack on the predicate conviction. Pp. 490-493. (b) The right, recognized in Burgett v. Texas
    Search
  12. U. S. 109 , and United States v. Tucker
    Search
  13. Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  14. U. S. 335 , to have appointed counsel. Since Johnson v. Zerbst
    Search
  15. See Maleng v. Cook
    Search
  16. Boykin v. Alabama
    Search
  17. Strickland v. Washington
    Search
  18. Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  19. and Burgett v. Texas
    Search
  20. Johnson v. Zerbst
    Search
  21. in trying to determine the validity of prior sentences. Ibid., 490 quoting United States v. Jones
    Search
  22. Barefoot v. Estelle
    Search
  23. of the type specified. The stat- 1 See, e. g., United States v. Paleo
    Search
  24. United States v. Merritt
    Search
  25. United States v. McGlocklin
    Search
  26. United States v. Gallman
    Search
  27. United States v. Day
    Search
  28. United States v. Clawson
    Search
  29. and United States v. Franklin
    Search
  30. Cf. Gozlon- Peretz v. United
    Search
  31. Russello v. United
    Search
  32. States, 464 U. S. 16 , 23 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our decision in Lewis v. United
    Search
  33. United States v. Culbert
    Search
  34. Burgett v. Texas
    Search
  35. U. S. 109 (1967), and United States v. Tucker
    Search
  36. U. S. 443 (1972), in support of this argument. Both of these decisions relied upon our earlier decision in Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  37. Betts v. Brady
    Search
  38. indigent defendant in state courts only upon a showing of special circumstances. Id., at 473. But even before Betts v. Brady
    Search
  39. Johnson v. Zerbst
    Search
  40. Moore v. Dempsey
    Search
  41. Waley v. Johnston
    Search
  42. Brown v. Allen
    Search
  43. U. S. 45 , 68-69 (1932). Following our decision in Gideon, the Court decided Burgett v. Texas
    Search
  44. Burgett v. Texas
    Search
  45. Johnson v. Zerbst
    Search
  46. Johnson v. Zerbst
    Search
  47. United States v. Addonizio
    Search
  48. U. S. 178 , 184, n. 11 (1979). We later noted in Parke v. Raley
    Search
  49. See Maleng v. Cook
    Search
  50. Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial