Grosvenor v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the merit of any potential defense is relevant to the credibility of defendant's assertion that he would have insisted on going to trial
• holding that a defendant seeking to vacate a plea under Hill/Strickland need not show that he would have rejected the plea and prevailed at trial, but only that he would have rejected the plea and proceeded to trial
• holding that a defendant seeking to vacate a plea under Hill/Strickland need not show that he would have rejected the plea and prevailed at trial, but only that he would have rejected the plea and proceeded to trial
• explaining that “the viability of the defense is relevant to the credibility of the assertion that the defendant would have insisted on going to trial if informed of that defense”
• establishing two-pronged test for assessing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel relating to guilty pleas: the first prong is identical to the deficient performance prong in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984
• rejecting dissent’s suggestion that the “correct inquiry ... is whether there was a viable defense,” and instructing courts to “consider the totality of the circumstances” “in determining whether a reasonable probability exists that the defendant would have insisted on going to trial”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).