United States v. Cong Van Pham

How courts have described this case

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

• “We hold that this statement to counsel, when viewed in context, was enough to trigger counsel’s constitutional duty to consult with Pham about an appeal.”
• “[C]ounsel’s professional opinion eschewing appeal does not excuse failure to consult altogether.”
• “In the absence of any self-evident reason why Pham would not have filed a direct appeal, and without any regard to the potential merits of such an appeal, we conclude that he has established prejudice under Flores–Ortega.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).