Shank v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the defendant failed to establish prejudice where he argued that “his counsel did not adequately investigate the case” but “failed to show that a more thorough investigation would have yielded any significant exculpatory evidence”
• stating that all of those involved in the criminal justice system, including “defense counsel and defendants,” have a duty “to ensure that the appropriate post-conviction motions are filed, litigated, and decided without unnecessary delay”
• finding no ineffective assistance where defendant failed to show what a more thorough investigation would have shown
• expressing this Court’s concern about inordinate delay in post-trial proceedings and calling on “trial courts and prosecutors [,] as well as defense counsel and defendants, to ensure that the appropriate post-conviction motions are filed, litigated, and decided without unnecessary delay”
• admonishing “that it is the duty of all those involved in the criminal justice system, including trial courts and prosecutors as well as defense counsel and defendants, to ensure that the appropriate post- conviction motions are filed, litigated, and decided without unnecessary delay”
• “There is a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the broad range of reasonable professional conduct, and generalized claims to the contrary not supported by affirmative evidence are insufficient to show deficient performance.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).