David A. Gray v. James Greer
800 F.2d 644 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel based on the failure to raise certain issues, a reviewing court must examine the trial record to determine if counsel's performance was deficient.
Facts:
- David Gray was charged with the rape of Ann Brewer, as well as attempted murder and armed robbery.
- Gray's defense at his first trial was mistaken identity.
- The government's case was weakened by an eyewitness's inability to identify Gray and a lack of corroborating physical evidence.
- Gray's first trial resulted in a hung jury.
- At his second trial, the state presented a new witness, Gray's former cellmate.
- The cellmate testified that he had heard Gray admit to committing the crimes.
- The jury at the second trial convicted Gray.
Procedural Posture:
- David Gray was convicted at a second trial and sentenced to sixty years in prison.
- The Illinois Appellate Court, with Gray represented by the State Appellate Defender, affirmed his conviction.
- The Illinois Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.
- Gray filed a federal habeas corpus petition, which was dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.
- Gray then filed a state post-conviction petition, which was dismissed, and that dismissal was affirmed by a state appellate court.
- Gray filed a second federal habeas corpus petition, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
- A federal magistrate dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, but the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding state remedies were no longer available.
- On remand, the magistrate, after reviewing only Gray's appellate brief, dismissed the petition on the merits, finding counsel's performance was not ineffective.
- Gray appealed the magistrate's dismissal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court err when it dismisses a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel based solely on a review of the appellate brief, without examining the underlying trial court record to assess the viability of issues the petitioner claims should have been raised?
Opinions:
Majority - Flaum, Circuit Judge
Yes. A district court errs by dismissing a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel without reviewing the trial record. To properly apply the Strickland v. Washington standard, a court must determine if counsel's performance was deficient by failing to raise significant and obvious issues. This determination requires examining the trial record to compare the strength of the issues that were not raised against those that were. Only when the ignored issues are clearly stronger than those presented can the presumption of effective assistance be overcome, and this comparison is impossible without reviewing the record from which those issues would have arisen.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the Strickland v. Washington standard to claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. It establishes that a reviewing court's duty is not merely to assess the quality of the brief as written, but to conduct a deeper analysis of the attorney's strategic choices. By mandating a review of the trial record, the court ensures that the right to effective appellate counsel is meaningful and prevents dismissals of such claims without a substantive examination of potentially meritorious, but unraised, legal arguments. This holding solidifies the principle that an attorney's decision not to raise an issue can only be deemed strategic after a court confirms that there were not clearly stronger, obvious issues available.
