Legal Opinion

King v. State

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 1991No. 90-176PublishedCited by 53 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

URBIGKIT, Chief Justice.

Jeffrey Allen King (King) claims he was denied effective assistance of counsel to the point of reversible error.

We agree and reverse and remand.

I. ISSUES

King argues that reversible error occurred in his trial because:

ARGUMENT I

The defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

This claim was supported by three arguments:

A. Defense counsel’s failure to effect service of process on an eye witness, or in the alternative, to request a continuance until that eye witness could be compelled to testify, is per se ineffective…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Penson v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. United States v. CronicSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Cuyler v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  5. Wood v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by53 opinions

  1. Dickeson v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Chapman v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Asch v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Duke v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Allen v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 2002

48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API