Evitts v. Lucey

Background

A man convicted of trafficking in controlled substances in Kentucky sought review of his conviction in the state intermediate appellate court. His privately hired lawyer filed the record and brief but failed to include a required “statement of appeal.” The Kentucky court dismissed the appeal for that procedural omission, and state courts refused further review. The defendant then obtained federal habeas relief unless the State reinstated the appeal or retried him; the case reached the Sixth Circuit and then this Court.

Reasoning

The Court examined whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires not only counsel on a first appeal as of right, but also effective counsel. Relying on earlier decisions that guaranteed counsel on a first appeal and that trial counsel must be effective, the Court held that nominal or useless representation on an appeal is no different than no counsel at all. The Court limited its inquiry to the Due Process question and accepted the lower court’s finding that appellate counsel was ineffective in this case.

Real world impact

The ruling means a State cannot extinguish a criminal defendant’s first appeal as of right when the loss of review results from the lawyer’s serious failings. States may still enforce procedural rules, but they must avoid imposing the loss of an appeal on a defendant who was denied effective assistance. The decision upheld the Sixth Circuit’s conditional relief requiring reinstatement or retrial unless the State provides a constitutionally adequate remedy.

Dissents or concurrances

Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist dissented, warning the ruling creates a new constitutional right on appeal, risks endless delay, and that equal protection — not due process — better explains earlier cases.