Blott v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that just because another attorney might have pursued different strategy does not support finding of ineffectiveness of counsel
• holding that the jury could have inferred from the fact that the defendant drove erratically on the wrong side of the road for a number of miles in broad daylight without any recollection that he was aware of the risk and chose to ignore it
• holding that the jury could have inferred from the fact that the defendant drove erratically on the wrong side of the road for a number of miles in broad daylight without any recollection that he was aware of the risk and chose to ignore it
• holding that the jury could have inferred from the fact that the defendant drove erratically on the wrong side of the road for a number of miles in broad daylight without any recollection that he was aware of the risk and chose to ignore it
• holding that the jury could have inferred from the fact that the defendant drove erratically on the wrong side of the road for a number of miles in broad daylight without any recollection that he was aware of the risk and chose to ignore it
• explaining that a reviewing court should “not second-guess through hindsight the strategy of counsel at trial nor will the fact that another attorney might have pursued a different course support a finding of ineffectiveness”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).