Hawkman v. Parratt’s Empirical Analysis
661 F.2d 1161 · 1981
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 3 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably 162 Ill. 2d 465 - People v. Palmer (1994), Thomas v. Al Lockhart (1984)
29 federal appellate · 3 district · 18 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Townsend v. Sain · Brady v. United States · Cuyler v. Sullivan · McMann v. Richardson · Tollett v. Henderson
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A guilty plea must represent the informed, self-determined choice of the defendant among practicable alternatives; a guilty plea cannot be a conscious, informed choice if the accused relies upon counsel who performs ineffectively in advising him regarding the consequences of entering a guilty plea and of the feasible options.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Saadiq v. State · Meier v. State“Appellant state of Nebraska argues that the federal district court ordered an evidentiary hearing in this case to determine whether the performance of Hawkman’s counsel was “at least as well as a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in the criminal law in his area,” namely, the area of Valentine, Nebraska. In ordering the hearing, the district court stated, inter alia, “[s]ince in this case evidence regarding the standard of performance for an attorney was not developed at the state hearing, an evidentiary hearing is, therefore, appropriate.” It appears to us that the district court convened the hearing simply to elicit opinions as to what actions a reasonably competent attorney would have taken on Hawkman’s behalf.... It is true that all witnesses who testified at the federal hearing were from western Nebraska and specifically from Valentine or Scottsbluff. However, the federal district court: (1) correctly set forth the applicable constitutional standards of counsel competence in this circuit; (2) expressly stated in its opinion that an evidentiary hearing was held “concerning the standard of performance for an attorney with ordinary training and skill”; and (3) clearly did not apply the Nebraska standards of counsel effectiveness set forth in State v. Leadinghorse, supra, 222 N.W.2d at 577 . If the Leadinghorse standards differed from the federal standards delineated in our opinions, they would, of course, not bind a federal district court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Meis“To prove that counsel was ineffective, the ... petitioner must demonstrate that the advice was 'not within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases. (Citation omitted.) Under this test, counsel must inform the defendant concerning the direct consequences of a guilty plea. But counsel is not ordinarily required to advise specifically of indirect or collateral consequences; such a requirement would call for conduct beyond the range of normal competency. (Citations omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Edman v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.