Tice v. Johnson

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that de novo review of a § 2254 claim is appropriate when the state court “did not address” an issue raised in a state habeas petition, so there are no state-court findings or conclusions to defer to in considering § 2254 relief
• observing that “[t]he familiar sufficiency- of-the evidence analysis centering on whether a reasonable jury could have convicted an adequately represented defendant is considerably more deferential than the Strickland test for prejudice”
• finding deficient performance on habeas review and declining “to engage in after-the-fact rationalization of a litigation strategy that almost certainly was never contemplated”
• performance and prejudice prongs of Strickland are not pure questions of fact on which trial court is presumed correct
• “A criminal defense attorney routinely faces thorny tactical decisions that may heavily bear on the defendant’s life or liberty.”
• “[E]ven an isolated error can support an ineffective-assistance claim if it is sufficiently egregious and prejudicial.” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).