Kendall v. State
Indiana Court of Appeals
1DissentRiley, Judge
I respectfully dissent. First, our supreme court has established a liberal approach permitting defendants with Blakely claims, whose counsels otherwise would have waived those claims under prior Indiana legal precedent, opportunity to litigate their claims; and secondly, when Kendall’s counsel’s performance is compared to the diligent work of other attorneys representing clients similarly situated with arguable Blakely claims, it is apparent that Kendall’s counsel’s performance fell below prevailing professional norms. I would conclude that fairness requires we find Kendall’s appellate…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Griffith v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Pasquantino v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.