# Penson v. Ohio

> Supreme Court of the United States · November 29, 1988 · 488 U.S. 75

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431487

## Case

- **Full name:** Penson v. Ohio
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** November 29, 1988
- **Citations:** 488 U.S. 75; 109 S. Ct. 346; 102 L. Ed. 2d 300; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 5405
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by O'Connor
- **Judges:** Stevens, O'Connor, Rehnquist
- **Cited by:** 13,895 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431487

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding 19 that where a Petitioner has been actually or constructively denied the assistance of counsel 20 altogether, the Strickland standard does not apply and prejudice is presumed; the implication is 21 that Strickland does apply where counsel is present but ineffective
- holding that where a defendant has been actually or constructively denied the assistance of appellate counsel altogether, the Strickland standard does not apply and prejudice is presumed; the implication is that Strickland does apply where counsel is present but ineffective
- holding 19 that where a defendant has been actually or constructively denied the assistance of counsel 20 altogether, the Strickland standard does not apply and prejudice is presumed; the implication is 21 that Strickland does apply where counsel is present but ineffective
- holding 14 that where a defendant has been actually or constructively denied the assistance of counsel 15 altogether, the Strickland standard does not apply and prejudice is presumed; the implication is 16 that Strickland does apply where counsel is present but ineffective
- holding 18 that where a defendant has been actually or constructively denied the assistance of counsel 19 altogether, the Strickland standard does not apply and prejudice is presumed; the implication is 20 that Strickland does apply where counsel is present but ineffective

## Opinion text

Justice O’Connor,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion. I write separately to emphasize that nothing in the Court’s opinion forecloses the possibility that a mere technical violation of Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738 (1967), might be excusable. The violation in this case was not a mere technical violation, however, and on that understanding I concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431487. Public record. Not legal advice.