Ellis v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Braggs v. State

    121 So. 3d 269 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 11 times

    Braggs asserts that due to the ineffectiveness of his counsel, he was denied of his right to a fair trial. In Ellis v. State, 952 So.2d 251, 253 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2006), this Court recognized that “[t]he standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel claims is the two-part test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ... (1984), which requires a showing that (1) counsel's performance was deficient and (2) that the deficiency prejudiced the defense.” Accordingly, Braggs must prove that his trial counsel “made errors so serious that [his counsel] was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment ... [and] that counsel's errors deprived him of a fair trial with reliable results.

  2. Ross v. State

    2007 KA 1889 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 39 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the circuit judge did not have the authority to extend the thirty-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal

    "The standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel claims is the two-part test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), which requires a showing that (1) counsel's performance was deficient and (2) that the deficiency prejudiced the defense." Ellis v. State, 952 So.2d 251, 253 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App. 2006). Therefore, Ross must show that trial counsel "made errors so serious that he was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment . . . [and] that counsel's errors deprived [her] of a fair trial with reliable results."