United States v. Private E1 TREVOR R. FORDYCE
Army Court of Criminal Appeals
1ConcurrenceHam, Judge
I agree we must return this case for a new post-trial recommendation and action. I conclude we must do so, however, because trial defense counsel provided ineffective assistance during the post-trial process.
Allegations of ineffective assistance are examined under the well-known standard established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Appellant bears the burden of showing first, that his counsel’s performance was deficient, and second, that his counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced him. Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. To prove deficient…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Padilla v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- United States v. WheelusCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1998
- United States v. PaleniusUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977
- United States v. GilleyCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2001
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.