Everett v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 25 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “For the second prong, “Strickland places the burden on the defendant, not the State, to show a ‘reasonable probability’ that the result would have been different.” Wong v. Belmontes [ 558 U.S. 15 ], 130 S.Ct. 383, 390-91 , 175 L.Ed.2d 328 (2009) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ). Strickland does not “require a defendant 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 ], 130 S.Ct. 447, 455-56 , 175 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009) (alteration in original) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693-94 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Butler v. State

2. ““[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

3. “(1) this Court must defer to the circuit court’s findings on factual issues so long as competent substantial evidence supports them; but (2) must review de novo ultimate conclusions on the deficiency and prejudice prongs. Reed v. State, 875 So.2d 415, 421-22 (Fla.2004) (citing Stephens v. State, 748 So.2d 1028, 1033 (Fla.1999) (“Thus, under Strickland , both the performance and prejudice prongs are mixed questions of law and fact, with deference to be given only to the lower court’s factual findings.”)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 151 So. 3d 1142 - Robert J. Bailey v. State of Florida