498 U.S. 430 (1991), 90-5393, Lozada v. Deeds

Docket Nº:No. 90-5393
Citation:498 U.S. 430, 111 S.Ct. 860, 112 L.Ed.2d 956, 59 U.S.L.W. 3558
Party Name:Lozada v. Deeds
Case Date:February 19, 1991
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 430

498 U.S. 430 (1991)

111 S.Ct. 860, 112 L.Ed.2d 956, 59 U.S.L.W. 3558

Lozada

v.

Deeds

No. 90-5393

United States Supreme Court

Feb. 19, 1991

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Petitioner Lozada failed to file a direct appeal from his Nevada state court convictions. After exhausting state postconviction remedies, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Federal District Court, alleging that he had been deprived of the opportunity to appeal his convictions by the ineffective assistance of his counsel, who, inter alia, never told him of his right to appeal. The court dismissed the petition, holding that Lozada's allegations failed to show prejudice under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, because Lozada had not demonstrated that an appeal might have succeeded. Subsequently, both the District Court and the Court of Appeals denied Lozada a certificate of probable cause to appeal the dismissal of his petition.

Held: The Court of Appeals erred in denying Lozada a certificate of probable cause because, under the standards set forth in Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893, for issuance of a certificate, he made a substantial showing that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel. The issue of prejudice could be resolved in a different manner than the one followed by the District Court. At least two Courts of Appeals have presumed prejudice by the denial of the right to appeal, yet the Court of Appeals in the instant case neither cited nor analyzed this line of authority.

Certiorari granted; reversed and remanded.

Per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM.

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 his attorney failed to inform him of his right to appeal, of the procedures

Page 431

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 insure 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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP