Skip to main content

Holland v. State

Citations

  • 761 S.W.2d 307
  • 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 152
  • 1988 WL 71488

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that \counsel was under no obligation to do what would amount to a futile act\
  • holding that trial counsel is under no duty to do what would amount to a futile act
  • holding that “counsel was under no obligation to do what would amount to a futile act”
  • holding allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel will be sustained only if they are firmly founded in the record
  • stating that “[a]bsent a showing by appellant that he would have benefitted from the testimony, the decision not to call witnesses at either stage of trial does not raise the specter of ineffective assistance.”
  • stating that “[a]bsent a showing by appellant that he would have benefitted from the testimony, the decision not to call witnesses at either stage of trial does not raise the specter of ineffective assistance.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Campbell, Clinton, Davis, Teague

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

192 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.