Brandon Powers v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• inferring that “a defendant’s choice to raise certain objec- tions at sentencing, but not others, was strategic and inten- tional.” (citations omitted)
• clarifying that “waiver is a threshold con- sideration when reviewing for plain error”
• explaining forfeiture arises when a party inadvertently fails to raise an argument in the district court
• “We review forfeited arguments for plain error, whereas waiver extinguishes error and precludes appellate review.”
• a defendant “obvious[ly]” and “intentionally” waives a sentencing challenge “when he affirmatively t[ells] the district court that he ha[s] no objection” (citation modi- fied)
• defendant waived right to challenge supervised-release conditions by telling district court he did not object to the proposed conditions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).