205 So. 3d 1013 - State v. Joseph’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. “that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the results of the proceeding would have been different.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Davis · 237 So. 3d 1226 - State v. Kelly

2. “Defendant also contends that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise any issues on appeal. However, this claim is moot, as defendant has in fact raised alleged errors himself in his pro se supplemental brief. State v. Kent, 15-323 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/28/15) , 178 So.3d 219, 232 (citing State v. Roberson, 94-1570 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/95) , 664 So.2d 687, 692 ). Further, defendant’s pro se assignments of error have been reviewed herein and have been found to be without merit. “In the appellate context, the [Strickland] prejudice prong first requires a showing that we would have afforded relief on appeal.” Roberson, supra (citing United States v. Phillips, 210 F.3d 345, 350 (5th Cir. 2000)). Thus, because there do not appear to be any non-frivolous errors that would afford relief on appeal, and defendant’s pro se assignments of error have not been shown to have merit, defendant cannot establish prejudice. See Roberson, supra. In light of the foregoing, we decline to find that defendant’s appellate counsel was ineffective for filing an Anders brief. This assignment of error is without merit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 224 So. 3d 1226 - State v. Ceasar