Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantappealtrialmotionhabeas corpusdue processrespondent
defendantattorneyappealmotionhabeas corpusleasedue processrespondentappellant

Related Cases

Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333
View Case »
Dows v. Wood, 211 F.3d 480, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4399
View Case »
Kamilewicz v. Bank of Boston Corp., 92 F.3d 506
View Case »
Keller v. Wolf, 239 Minn. 397, 58 N.W.2d 891
View Case »
In re Johnson, 62 Cal.2d 325, 398 P.2d 420, 42 Cal.Rptr. 228
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 105 S.Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821, 53 USLW 4101

Facts

After being convicted of a drug offense in Kentucky, the respondent's retained counsel filed a notice of appeal but failed to submit the required statement of appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed this dismissal, and the trial court denied a motion for a belated appeal. The respondent then sought federal habeas corpus relief, arguing that the dismissal deprived him of his right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

After respondent was convicted of a drug offense in a Kentucky state court, his retained counsel filed a timely notice of appeal to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. But because counsel failed to file the statement of appeal required by a Kentucky Rule of Appellate Procedure when he filed his brief and record on appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and later denied a motion for reconsideration.

Issue

Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee a criminal defendant the effective assistance of counsel on his first appeal as of right?

The question presented in this case is whether the appellate-level right to counsel also comprehends the right to effective assistance of counsel.

Rule

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that a criminal defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel on his first appeal as of right, as nominal representation does not satisfy constitutional requirements.

Held: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the effective assistance of counsel on his first appeal as of right.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the respondent's appeal was an appeal as of right under Kentucky law, and that the failure of his counsel to comply with procedural requirements constituted ineffective assistance. The court emphasized that the right to counsel includes the right to effective assistance, and that the dismissal of the appeal due to counsel's incompetence violated the respondent's due process rights.

A first appeal as of right therefore is not adjudicated in accord with due process of law if the appellant does not have the effective assistance of an attorney.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts, holding that the respondent was entitled to effective assistance of counsel on his first appeal as of right.

We affirm.

Who won?

The respondent prevailed in the case because the court recognized that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, which violated his due process rights.

The District Court granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus, ordering respondent's release unless the Commonwealth either reinstated his appeal or retried him.

You must be