Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Baldridge v. Weber
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided February 20, 2008No. 24521Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGilbertson, Chief Justice
[¶ 39.] I respectfully dissent as to the Court’s conclusion that Baldridge is entitled to habeas relief over a purported violation of a plea agreement. I would affirm on that issue since, he has failed to show any prejudice.
[¶ 40.] This is a habeas proceeding. Thus, I fully agree with the Court that to succeed Baldridge must establish he “was deprived of basic constitutional rights.” Moeller v. Weber, 2004 SD 110, ¶ 10, 689 N.W.2d 1, 6 (citation omitted). Under the Strickland standard, to establish a deprivation of the right to effective counsel, Baldridge must show (1) ineffective assistance…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Elwood v. . the Western Union Telegraph Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Miller v. HernandezSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
- Bridge v. Karl's, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1995
- LDL Cattle Co., Inc. v. GuetterSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.