Supreme Court Ruling Expands Opportunities for Federal Review of Ineffective Assistance Claims

On May 28, 2013, the Court ruled (5 – 4) in Trevino v. Thaler that death row inmates in Texas can raise claims of inef­fec­tive­ness of coun­sel for the first time in fed­er­al court if they did not have a mean­ing­ful chance to raise the claim in state appeals. The Court held that its rul­ing in Martinez v. Ryan (2012), which pro­vid­ed such a right in an Arizona case where state law for­bids rais­ing the claim in one’s direct appeal, applies in Texas because the ​“state pro­ce­dur­al frame­work, by rea­son of its design and oper­a­tion, makes it high­ly unlike­ly in a typ­i­cal case that a defen­dant will have a mean­ing­ful oppor­tu­ni­ty to raise a claim of inef­fec­tive assis­tance of tri­al coun­sel on direct appeal.” In Martinez v. Ryan, the Supreme Court ruled that ​“pro­ce­dur­al default will not bar a fed­er­al habeas court from hear­ing a sub­stan­tial claim of inef­fec­tive assis­tance at tri­al if, in the ini­tial-review col­lat­er­al pro­ceed­ing, there was no coun­sel or coun­sel in that pro­ceed­ing was ineffective.”

(A. Liptak, ​“Divided Court, in 2 Rulings, Makes It Easier to Challenge Criminal Convictions,” New York Times, May 28, 2013). See Representation and U.S. Supreme Court. Read full text of the Court’s opin­ion.