Citation network
Roe Vs. Flores-ortega
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 23, 2000
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. 470 (2000) October Term, 1999 Syllabus Roe, Warden V. Flores-OrtegaSearch
-
s specific instructions to file a notice of appeal acts in a professionally unreasonable manner, see Rodriquez v. UnitedSearch
-
plainly cannot later complain that, by following those instructions, his counsel performed deficiently, see Jones v. BarnesSearch
-
the pattern established in Strickland and Cronic, and mirrors the prejudice inquiry applied in Hill v. LockhartSearch
-
U. S. 52 , and Rodriquez v. UnitedSearch
-
a defendant both to deny committing a crime and to admit that there is sufficient evidence to convict him. See People v. WestSearch
-
The Magistrate Judge acknowledged that under precedent from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States v. StearnsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
announced a new rule that could not be applied retroactively on collateral review to respondent's case. See Teague v. LaneSearch
-
to file a 476 notice of appeal was without the petitioner's consenttracked its earlier opinion in Lozada v. DeedsSearch
-
a conflict in the lower courts regarding counsel's obligations to file a notice of appeal. Compare United States v. TajeddiniSearch
-
Morales v. UnitedSearch
-
Ludwig v. UnitedSearch
-
Castellanos v. UnitedSearch
-
Romero v. TansySearch
-
United States v. StearnsSearch
-
of appeal is deficient unless the defendant consents to the abandonment of his appeal). II In Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
from the defendant to file a notice of appeal acts in a manner that is professionally unreasonable. See Rodriquez v. UnitedSearch
-
cf. Peguero v. UnitedSearch
-
appeal plainly cannot later complain that, by following his instructions, his counsel performed deficiently. See Jones v. BarnesSearch
-
counsel's deficient performance has not deprived him of anything, and he is not entitled to relief. Cf. Peguero v. UnitedSearch
-
We believe this prejudice standard breaks no new ground, for it mirrors the prejudice inquiry applied in Hill v. LockhartSearch
-
U. S. 52 (1985), and Rodriquez v. UnitedSearch
-
Id., at 330. See also Evitts v. LuceySearch
-
and exists only at the furthest reach of theory, given a defendant's right to adversarial representation, see Smith v. RobbinsSearch
-
available as a matter of right, a decision to seek or forgo review is for the convict himself, not his lawyer, Jones v. BarnesSearch
-
U. S. 745 , 751 (1983), who owes a duty of effective assistance at the appellate stage, Evitts v. LuceySearch
-
But, as the Court says, a lesser infidelity than that may fail the test of lawyer competence under Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
it cannot be made intelligently without appreciating the merits of possible grounds for seeking review, see Peguero v. UnitedSearch
-
Rodriquez v. UnitedSearch
-
appellate issue. 493 having no right to counsel in state postconviction proceedings. See Pennsylvania v. FinleySearch
-
see also Rodriquez v. UnitedSearch
-
Syllabus Roe, Warden V. Flores-OrtegaSearch
-
Jones v. BarnesSearch
-
Hill v. LockhartSearch
-
and Rodriquez v. UnitedSearch
-
See People v. WestSearch
-
the Ninth Circuit, United States v. StearnsSearch
-
See Teague v. LaneSearch
-
Compare United States v. TajeddiniSearch
-
II In Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
See Rodriquez v. UnitedSearch
-
Peguero v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial