Lewis v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “it is clear that [counsel] did not meet with Lewis or otherwise attempt to contact him after the sentencing proceeding or the post-trial motion was denied although Lewis indicated an interest in challenging his conviction. " Id. (emphasis added). This Court went on to note: 34 [T]his record compels a finding that trial counsel's conduct was objectively unreasonable. We can think of no strategic reason to explain why [counsel] failed to follow-up with Lewis either following the sentencing or after the trial court denied the motion to withdraw, and the Commonwealth offers none. The ultimate decision to appeal rests with the defendant. Thus, even if [counsel] concluded that any appeal would be frivolous, he could not disregard the evidence of Lewis's unequivocal desire to challenge his sentence and guilty plea, and abandon his client at this critical stage in the proceedings. 35 Id. at 661 (citation omitted). This Court based this conclusion on trial counsel's testimony that he did not remember speaking to Mr. Lewis after sentencing and that Mr. Lewis likely had difficulty contacting him. Id. at 660. The Court observed that the two motions to withdraw Mr. Lewis' guilty plea "should have put [counsel] on notice that Lewis may have been interested in appealing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Harrington v. Gillis

2. “Although not determinative, a highly relevant factor in this inquiry will be whether the conviction follows a trial or a guilty plea, both because a guilty plea reduces the scope of potentially appeal-able issues and because such a plea may indicate that the defendant seeks an end to judicial proceedings. Even in cases when the defendant pleads guilty, the court must consider such factors as whether the defendant received the sen tence bargained for as part of the plea and whether the plea expressly reserved or waived some or all appeal rights.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 667 F. Supp. 2d 498 - United States v. Purcell

3. “In a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 347 F. Supp. 2d 206 - McIntyre v. Klem