Wheeler v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “With respect to those claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel specifically during the penalty phase, penalty-phase prejudice under the Strickland standard is measured by “whether the error of trial counsel undermines this Court’s confidence in the sentence of death when viewed in the context of the penalty phase evidence and the miti-gators and aggravators found by the trial court.” Hurst [v. State, 18 So.3d 975, 1013 (Fla.2009)]. Under this standard, a defendant is not required “to show ‘that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome’ of his penalty proceeding, but rather that he establish ‘a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in [that] outcome.’ ” Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30, 44 , 130 S.Ct. 447 , 175 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693-94 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ). “To assess that probability, [the Court] considers] ‘the totality of the available mitigation evidence ... ’ and ‘reweigh[s] it against the evidence in aggravation.’ ” Id. at 41, 130 S.Ct. 447 (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 397-98 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 176 So. 3d 900 - & SC13-1785 Dwight T. Eaglin v. State of Florida and Dwight T. Eaglin v. Julie L. Jones, etc.

2. “To the extent that. Dr. Smith’s testimony is more favorable, this Court has repeatedly held that “a defendant cannot establish that trial counsel was ineffective in obtaining and presenting mental mitigation merely by presenting a new expert who has a more favorable report.” Wyatt v. State, 78 So.3d 512, 533 (Fla.2011); see also Peede v. State, 955 So.2d 480, 494 (Fla.2007) (“The fact that Peede produced more- favorable expert testimony at his evidentiary hearing is not reason enough to deem trial counsel ineffective.”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 175 So. 3d 761 - Pinkney Carter v. State of Florida