Commonwealth v. Touw

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a claim that counsel failed to consult with a defendant about an appeal “does not fit within the [per se ineffectiveness] rule articulated” in Lantzy
• holding that a claim that counsel failed to consult with a defendant about an appeal “does not fit within the [per se ineffectiveness] rule articulated” in Lantzy
• stating that an appellant must prove that he requested an appeal, but counsel disregarded his request
• applying Flores-Ortega and finding (1) counsel’s discussions with defendant’s parents regarding futility of appeal did not satisfy counsel’s duty to consult with defendant, and (2
• holding counsel has constitutional duty to consult with a defendant about an appeal “when there is reason to think either (1) that a rational defendant would want to appeal (for example, because there are nonfrivolous grounds for appeal), or (2
• holding counsel has constitutional duty to consult with a defendant about an appeal “when there is reason to think either (1) that a rational defendant would want to appeal (for example, because there are nonfrivolous grounds for appeal), or (2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).