Lozada v. Deeds, 90-5393
| Decision Date | 19 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-5393,90-5393 |
| Citation | 498 U.S. 430,112 L.Ed.2d 956,111 S.Ct. 860 |
| Parties | Jose M. LOZADA v. George DEEDS, Warden |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Petitioner Jose M. Lozada was convicted in Nevada state court in 1987 of four crimes arising out of the possession and sale of a controlled substance in violation of the laws of that State. Lozada filed no direct appeal. After exhausting state postconviction remedies, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Lozada contended that ineffective assistance of counsel had deprived him of the opportunity to appeal his state-court convictions. In particular, he alleged that his attorney failed to inform him of his right to appeal, of the pro- cedures and time limitations for an appeal, and of his right to appointed counsel. The habeas petition alleged further that the attorney had failed to file a notice of appeal or to ensure that Lozada received appointed counsel on appeal. It also implied that Lozada had been misled when the attorney told Lozada's sister that his case had been forwarded to the public defender's office.
Without holding a hearing on Lozada's claims, a federal Magistrate recommended that the petition be dismissed. The District Court agreed and dismissed the petition, rejecting the ineffective-assistance claim on the ground that petitioner's allegations failed to satisfy the standard set forth in our decision in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The court acknowledged that trial counsel's alleged failure to inform petitioner of his right to appeal might constitute conduct below constitutional standards. It reasoned, however, that Lozada had not indicated what issues he would have raised on appeal and had not demonstrated that the appeal might have succeeded. As a result, the court concluded that petitioner had not shown prejudice under the Strickland test. The District Court later denied Lozada a certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253, again stating that Lozada had failed to show any prejudice from counsel's alleged errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit also denied a certificate of probable cause in a one-sentence order. Lozada filed the instant petition for a writ of certiorari, which we now grant along with his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
In Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 892-893, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3394, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983), we delineated the standards for issuance of a certificate of probable cause. We agreed with the Courts of Appeals that had ruled that "a certificate of probable cause requires petitioner to make a 'substantial showing of the denial of [a] federal right.' " Id., at 893, 103 S.Ct., at 3394 (quoting Stewart v. Beto, 454 F.2d 268, 270, n. 2 (CA5 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 925, 92 S.Ct. 1796, 32 L.Ed.2d 126 (1972)). We also quoted with approval Gordon v. Willis, 516 F.Supp. 911, 913 (ND Ga.1980) (citing United States ex rel. Jones v. Richmond, 245 F.2d 234 (CA2), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 846, 78 S.Ct. 71, 2 L.Ed.2d 56 (1957)), which explained that in order to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right a petitioner who has been denied relief in a district court " 'must demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, No. 17883.
...further."9 (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 616, 646 A.2d 126, quoting Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430, 432, 111 S.Ct. 860, 112 L.Ed.2d 956 (1991). The required determination may be made on the basis of the record before the habeas court and the applicable leg......
-
Vitale v. Comm'r of Corr.
...615–16, 646 A.2d 126 (1994), we incorporated the factors adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430, 431–32, 111 S.Ct. 860, 112 L.Ed. 2d 956 (1991), as the appropriate standard for determining whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certifi......
-
Antonio A. v. Comm'r of Corr.
...Conn. 608, 615–16, 646 A.2d 126 (1994) (adopting factors identified by United States Supreme Court in Lozada v. Deeds , 498 U.S. 430, 431–32, 111 S. Ct. 860, 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991), as appropriate standard for determining whether habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification......
-
Mitchell v. State
...Seebeck v. State , supra, 246 Conn. at 534, 717 A.2d 1161 ; see id. (relying on framework adopted in Lozada v. Deeds , 498 U.S. 430, 431–32, 111 S. Ct. 860, 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991), for analyzing certificate of probable cause to appeal under federal habeas corpus statute for petitions for ......
-
The Historical Case for Abandoning Strickland
...v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407 (1990); Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344 (1990); Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990); Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 (1991); McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (1991); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991); Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993); Godine......
-
Brecht v. Abrahamson: harmful error in habeas corpus law.
...original sentence in part on aggravating circumstance). (108) See, e.g., Sochor, 112 S. Ct. at 2123. (109) See, e.g., Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430, 432 (1991) (per curiam) (petitioner was entitled to certificate of probable cause on claim of ineffectiveness of counsel on appeal even withou......
-
Protecting first federal habeas corpus petitions: closing the opening left by Gomez.
...v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (1991); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991); McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991); Lozacla v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 (1991); Burden v. Zant, 498 U.S. 433 (1991); Parker v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308 (1991); Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764 (1990); Sawyer v. Smith, 49......
-
Human Rights Commentator
...a pellate scrutin " Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 618 (1994). In dissent, Justice Bersdon once again disagreed. 31. Supra note 27. 32. 498 U.S. 430, 431-32 33. Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. at 616 (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted, 34. Supra note 10. 35. Carpenter v. Me......