Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 741 F.2d 1275 - Francois v. Wainwright

Francois v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis

741 F.2d 1275 · 1984

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
October 2013
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2013 · most notably Evitts v. Lucey (1985), Lindsey v. Smith (1987)

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

5301984199020002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Wainwright v. Sykes · United States v. Frady · Engle v. Isaac · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson

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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"It is well established that a defendant has the right to effective counsel on appeal. Alvord v. Wainwright , 725 F.2d 1282 , 1291 (11th Cir. 1984) [cert. denied, 469 U.S. 956 , 105 S.Ct. 355 , 83 L.Ed.2d 291 (1984)]. However, counsel's failure to raise issues on appeal that only later gain 'judicial recognition' does not constitute ineffectiveness, id.; Sullivan v. Wainwright , 695 F.2d 1306 , 1309 (11th Cir.), cert. denied , [464] U.S. [922], 104 S.Ct. 290 , 78 L.Ed.2d 266 (1983), 'and counsel need not brief issues reasonably considered to be without merit.' Alvord , 725 F.2d at 1291 (citing Mendiola v. Estelle , 635 F.2d 487 , 491 (5th Cir. 1981); Hooks v. Roberts , 480 F.2d 1196 , 1197-98 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied , 414 U.S. 1163 , 94 S.Ct. 926 , 39 L.Ed.2d 116 (1974)). "We think that appellate counsel also need not raise issues that he reasonably concludes will not be considered on the merits by the appeals court." Francois v. Wainwright , 741 F.2d 1275 , 1285 (11th Cir. 1984).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “there may be some cases in which trial counsel’s failure to preserve error will not excuse appellate counsel’s failure to raise the error, if, for example, the state appeals courts only sporadically apply the procedural bar, or if the error is of such magnitude that the appellate court would likely consider it plain or fundamental error.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““And we agree with the district court that the unpresented mitigating evidence, which relates to Francois’ education, work history, and family life, would have no effect on the sentencing proceedings.” Id. at 1285 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.