121 So. 3d 445 - Shellito v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Because both prongs of the Strickland test present mixed questions of law and fact, this Court employs a mixed standard of review, deferring to the circuit court’s factual findings that are supported by competent, substantial evidence, but reviewing the circuit court’s legal conclusions de novo.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 175 So. 3d 242 - Mark A. Twilegar v. State of Florida · 161 So. 3d 335 - John Steven Huggins v. State of Florida

2. “Penalty phase claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are also reviewed under the two-prong test established by Strickland, and “[i]n reviewing a claim that counsel’s representation was ineffective based on a failure to investigate or present mitigating evidence, the Court requires the defendant to demonstrate that the deficient performance deprived the defendant of a reliable penalty phase proceeding.” Hoskins v. State, 75 So.3d [at 254], In determining whether the penalty phase proceeding was reliable, “the failure [of counsel] to investigate and present available mitigating evidence is a relevant concern along with the reasons for not doing so.” Rose v. State, 675 So.2d 567, 571 (Fla. 1996). “It is unquestioned that under the prevailing professional norms ... counsel ha[s] an ‘obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendant’s background.’ ” Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30, 39 , 130 S.Ct. 447 , 175 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 396 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)); see also Hannon v. State, 941 So.2d 1109, 1124 (Fla. 2006) (“Pursuant to Strickland, trial counsel has an obligation to conduct a reasonable investigation into mitigation.”). Moreover, counsel must not ignore pertinent avenues for investigation of which he or she should have been aware. See Porter, 558 U.S. at 40 , 130 S.Ct. 447 . “[I]t is axiomatic that ‘counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes p”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 213 So. 3d 881 - Tavares J. WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee