What is the argument that counsel failed to meet the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent attorney?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from The PEOPLE v. ROCHA, G042532, No. 08CF1354 (Cal. App. 2010):
i.e., that counsel's performance did not meet the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent attorney, and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that defendant would have obtained a more favorable result absent counsel's shortcomings." (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1003.) This argument fails on both grounds.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What is the test for failing to provide a reasonable probability that defendant would have obtained a more favourable result if counsel had failed to provide counsel with reasonable counsel? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of proof for a prosecutor to argue that a reasonable doubt standard is reasonable? (California, United States of America)
Does counsel who fail to respond when given the chance to respond to arguments in an adversarial context deprive the trial court of the opportunity to consider their arguments in a similar context? (California, United States of America)
Does an of counsel attorney have a conflict of interest relationship with a law firm and the attorneys affiliated with it as of counsel? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether counsel is a reasonably competent attorney? (California, United States of America)
How have courts treated arguments of counsel in the context of the reasonable doubt standard and presumption of innocence? (California, United States of America)
If a prosecutor has made a number of improper statements in their closing argument, would the defense counsel have been within the bounds of reasonable competence to respond with an objection? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for evidence that the appellant could reasonably reasonably reasonably expect the appellant to have knowledge of a crime? (California, United States of America)
Does counsel who fail to respond when given the chance to respond to arguments in an adversarial context deprive the trial court of the opportunity to consider their arguments in a similar context? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard for a reasonably competent attorney? (California, United States of America)
