Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Scapin v. State

204 Ga. App. 725 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Scapin v. State

37 Citing cases

  1. Patterson v. State

    A11A1146 (Ga. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2011)   Cited 1 times

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Scapin v. State, 204 Ga. App. 725 ( 420 SE2d 385) (1992). Here, the indictment, in pertinent part, charged Patterson with "armed robbery for that [he] . . .did with the intent to commit a theft, take property, to wit: jewelry, cash and motor vehicles of another . . . by use of an offensive weapon, to wit: a handgun.

  2. Carter v. State

    308 Ga. App. 686 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that officers had authority to enter the back yard of a home and look into the open door of the shed during service of an arrest warrant

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Scapin v. State, 204 Ga. App. 725 ( 420 SE2d 385) (1992). (a) Carter asserts his trial counsel should have asked for charges on mere presence, mere approval without more, mere association, and grave suspicion because the State's case centered on the theory that Carter was a "party to a crime."

  3. Wade v. State

    305 Ga. App. 382 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 7 times

    (Citations omitted.) Scapin v. State, 204 Ga. App. 725 ( 420 SE2d 385) (1992). (a) We find no merit in Wade's claim that his counsel failed to learn Georgia law on child molestation and did not know that the Georgia rape shield statute did not apply to child molestation and sexual battery cases based upon trial counsel's testimony to the contrary during the motion for new trial hearing.

  4. Mahoney v. State

    675 S.E.2d 285 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 5 times

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Scapin v. State, 204 Ga. App. 725 ( 420 SE2d 385) (1992). The two-prong test for determining the validity of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel provided in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 ( 104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984), asks whether counsel's performance was deficient and, if so, whether this deficiency prejudiced the defense; that is, whether there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different, but for counsel's deficiency.

  5. Spencer v. State

    667 S.E.2d 223 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that a narcotics agent acted with a reasonable and good faith suspicion of criminal activity when she searched the probationer's room after receiving two reports of drug activity, even when one of the reports was anonymous and received two months prior to the search

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Scapin v. State, 204 Ga. App. 725 ( 420 SE2d 385) (1992). "When trial counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress is the basis for a claim of ineffective assistance, the defendant must make a strong showing that the damaging evidence would have been suppressed had counsel made the motion."

  6. Dade v. State

    292 Ga. App. 897 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 6 times

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Scapin v. State, 204 Ga. App. 725 ( 420 SE2d 385) (1992). Viewed in this light, the record shows that a DeKalb County police officer responded to a dispatch call of a "burglary in progress" at 1046 Main Street Lake Drive around 1:00 p.m.

  7. Cleveland v. State

    290 Ga. App. 835 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 8 times
    Finding sufficient probable cause for search warrant after reviewing supporting affidavit "as a whole"

    The above-quoted language should not be used to alter the well-established "clearly erroneous" standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel. See, e.g., Scapin v. State, 204 Ga. App. 725 ( 420 SE2d 385) (1992) (standard of review). Simply because an inference " could be drawn even where the evidence is disputed or unclear on this question," does not mean that a trial court is required to do so in cases where the evidence is disputed.

  8. Williams v. State

    661 S.E.2d 563 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 3 times

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Scapin v. State, 204 Ga. App. 725 ( 420 SE2d 385) (1992). The two-prong test for determining the validity of a claim of ineffective[ness] . . . of counsel provided in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984), asks whether counsel's performance was deficient and, if so, whether this deficiency prejudiced the defense; that is, whether there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different, but for counsel's deficiency.

  9. Reynolds v. State

    290 Ga. App. 44 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 4 times
    In Reynolds v. State, 290 Ga. App. 44 (658 SE2d 815) (2008) (Reynolds I), Paul Reynolds appealed from his aggravated assault conviction and asserted that he received ineffective assistance of counsel on four separate grounds.

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Scapin v. State, 204 Ga. App. 725 ( 420 SE2d 385) (1992). The two-prong test for determining the validity of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel provided in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984), asks whether counsel's performance was deficient and, if so, whether this deficiency prejudiced the defense; that is, whether there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different but for counsel's deficiency.

  10. Francis v. State

    287 Ga. App. 428 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 2 times

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Scapin v. State, 204 Ga. App. 725 ( 420 SE2d 385) (1992). Although the Supreme Court in Strickland discussed the performance component prior to the prejudice component, it acknowledged that a court addressing the ineffective assistance issue is not required to approach the inquiry in that order or even to address both components if the defendant has made an insufficient showing on one.