Tennessee Supreme Court· 12/23/2003

Wallace v. State

Citations

121 S.W.3d 652
2003 Tenn. LEXIS 1213
2003 WL 22999390

How courts have described this case

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

holding that the failure to file a motion for new trial was both deficient performance and presumptively prejudicial
holding that “counsel’s failure to file a timely motion for new trial . . . was deficient”
holding that “counsel’s failure to file a timely motion for new trial . . . was deficient”
recognizing that motion for new trial is a critical stage of the proceedings because it allows the defendant to preserve and pursue the available post- trial remedies
holding that the attorney’s failure to file a motion for new trial coupled with his failure to withdraw as counsel, thereby preventing the defendant from filing a pro se motion, was presumptively prejudicial
concluding that counsel’s failure to file a timely motion for new trial, as well as his failure to withdraw so as to allow the defendant to file a pro se motion for new trial, was deficient performance

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Justice E. Riley Anderson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

126 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.