Alisha Ann Murphy v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that because post-conviction counsel is not a statutory or constitutional right there can be no deprivation of effective assistance of counsel
• holding that “where there is no right to counsel, there can be no deprivation of effective assistance of counsel” and thus Murphy failed to demonstrate “sufficient reason” for filing a successive petition based on ineffectiveness of post-conviction counsel
• noting that Murphy had no new evidence to present, so she was relying on her claim of ineffective assistance as providing sufficient reason for the successive petition
• “Where there is no right to counsel, there can be no deprivation of effective assistance of counsel.”
• petitioner cannot demonstrate sufficient reason for filing a successive petition based on alleged ineffectiveness of prior post-conviction counsel
• “The standard for determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent petitioner in a post-conviction proceeding is whether the petition alleges facts showing the possibility of a valid claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).