Sochor v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendant’s claim that execution by electrocution or lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is meritless
• noting that “we apply [this] mixed standard of review because both the performance and the prejudice prongs of the Strickland test present mixed questions of law and fact”
• rejecting a claim of death penalty innocence because this Court had rejected the defendant’s attacks on the aggravators on direct appeal
• rejecting a claim of death penalty innocence because this Court had rejected the defendant's attacks on the aggravators on direct appeal
• deferring, in context of Strickland claim, to postconviction court’s decision to credit state’s expert and not defendant’s new expert
• deferring to the trial court's factual finding that even if defense counsel had adequately investigated the penalty phase, he would not have been able to present evidence substantially different than that presented at the penalty phase

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).