3 So. 3d 1017 - Heath v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 26 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First, the claimant must identify particular acts or omissions of the lawyer that are shown to be outside the broad range of reasonably competent performance under prevailing professional standards. Second, the clear, substantial deficiency shown must further be demonstrated to have so affected the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that confidence in the outcome is undermined. A court considering a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel need not make a specific ruling on the performance component of the test when it is clear that the prejudice component is not satisfied.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 29 So. 3d 938 - Pagan v. State · 88 So. 3d 85 - Barwick v. State

2. ““The fact that this defense strategy was ultimately unsuccessful with the jury does not render counsel’s performance deficient. See Johnson v. State, 769 So.2d 990, 1001 (Fla.2000) (‘Simply because the ... defense did not work, it does not mean that the theory of the defense was flawed.’ (quoting trial court’s order)).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brownfield v. State · Bush v. State

3. ““[Strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if alternative courses have been considered and rejected and counsel’s decision was reasonable under the norms of professional conduct.” The defendant carries the burden to “overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy.” Moreover, this Court has held, “That there may have been more that trial counsel could have done or that new counsel in reviewing the record with hindsight would handle the case differently, does not mean that trial counsel’s performance during the guilt phase was deficient.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 87 So. 3d 644 - Mendoza v. State