Matter of Caitlyn M. (Marie M.)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant could not establish prejudice for trial counsel’s failure to hire an expert when the expert’s testimony would not have changed the nature of the State’s evidence
• holding that the defendant could not establish prejudice for trial counsel’s failure to hire an expert when the expert’s testimony would not have changed the nature of the State’s evidence
• “[A]ppellate counsel cannot be deemed deficient for failing to - 56 - raise meritless issues or issues that were not properly raised in the trial court and are not fundamental error.”
• “A habeas petition must plead specific facts that entitle the defendant to relief. Conclusory allegations have repeatedly been held insufficient by this Court because they do not permit the court to examine the specific allegations against the record.”
• “A habeas petition must plead specific facts that entitle the defendant to relief. Conclusory allegations have repeatedly been held insufficient by this Court because they do not permit the court to examine the specific allegations against the record.”
• “[T]o establish a Brady violation, three elements must be shown: (1) the evidence at issue was favorable to the defendant, either because it is exculpatory or is impeaching; (2) the evidence was suppressed, willfully or inadvertently, by the State; and (3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).