Legal Opinion

In re James Burke

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided April 19, 2019No. 2017-261PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSkoglund, J.

¶ 1. Petitioner James Burke sought post-conviction relief (PCR) alleging that his trial counsel, Attorney Daniel Maguire, provided ineffective assistance because of a conflict of interest. The PCR court denied petitioner's motion for summary judgment and granted the State's motion for summary judgment based on the court's determination that Attorney Maguire did not provide ineffective counsel. Petitioner appeals and, for the reasons below, we affirm.

¶ 2. Pertinent to this appeal are the circumstances surrounding petitioner's representation by counsel at trial, which were summarized by this…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Cuyler v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Richard Winkler v. John Keane, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional FacilityCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
  4. In re S.B.L.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1988
  5. United States v. Max Allen EllisonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. In re Gregory S. FitzGeraldSupreme Court of Vermont · 2020
  2. PeakCM, LLC v. Mountainview Metal Systems, LLCSupreme Court of Vermont · 2025
  3. In re Miles Otis Dow, Jr.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2019
  4. In re Miles Otis Dow, Jr.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2019
  5. Burke v. TouchetteDistrict Court, D. Vermont · 2020

8 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