Carlson v. University of New England

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that, even though defense counsel’s approach to the case did not persuade the jury, it was part of a reasonable defense strategy and that the Petitioner was not deprived of effective assistance
• noting that the Harrington presumption of a merits adjudication “prevails even when the state court’s opinion wholly omits discussion of the federal claim”
• “Courts should not upset a plea solely because of post hoc assertions from a defendant about how he would have pleaded but for his attorney’s deficiencies.” (alterations omitted) (quoting Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. 357, 369 (2017))
• “We do not doubt that [the petitioner] wishes, in hindsight, he had taken the deal—his sentence is three times what it might have been. But absent evidence that [the petitioner] would have taken the deal at the time, he has not shown prejudice.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).