Opinion No. Oag 20-86, (1986)

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “counsel’s failure [ ] to demonstrate a grasp of the relevant legal standards” can amount to deficient performance
• recognizing that the prejudice showings for plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel are not identical
• recognizing that, “[o]f course, counsel may 15 USCA4 Appeal: 21-7283 Doc: 65 Filed: 07/01/2024 Pg: 16 of 20 have a strategic reason for not raising a particular objection”
• holding that “[c]ounsel’s ignorance of a point of law that is fundamental to his case combined with his failure to perform basic research on that point is a quintessential example of unreasonable performance.” (citation omitted)
• explaining that “the absence of binding precedent in conjunction with disagreement among circuits” precludes us from finding plain error
• noting that a district court’s legal conclusions in denying a § 2255 motion are reviewed de novo

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).