Edwards v. Carpenter
529 U.S. 446 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An ineffective assistance of counsel claim asserted as cause to excuse the procedural default of another constitutional claim is itself subject to procedural default rules. To use such a defaulted claim as cause, the petitioner must demonstrate cause and prejudice for the default of the ineffective assistance claim itself.
Facts:
- Respondent Carpenter was indicted by an Ohio grand jury for aggravated murder and aggravated robbery.
- Carpenter entered a guilty plea while maintaining his innocence, known as an Alford plea.
- As part of the plea agreement, the prosecution agreed the plea could be withdrawn if the three-judge panel imposed the death penalty.
- The panel accepted the plea and, after a mitigation hearing, sentenced Carpenter to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after 30 years.
Procedural Posture:
- On direct appeal with new counsel, Carpenter assigned a single error regarding his parole eligibility to the Ohio Court of Appeals.
- The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, and Carpenter did not appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.
- Carpenter filed an application to reopen his direct appeal in the Ohio Court of Appeals, arguing his original appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.
- The Ohio Court of Appeals dismissed the application as untimely under Ohio Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(B) because Carpenter failed to show good cause for the late filing.
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.
- Carpenter filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
- The District Court found the underlying sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim was procedurally defaulted but excused the default, holding that the state procedural rule for the ineffective assistance claim was not an adequate state ground, and granted the writ.
- On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that an exhausted ineffective assistance claim could serve as cause regardless of whether it was itself procedurally defaulted.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a federal habeas court barred from considering an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as 'cause' to excuse the procedural default of another claim, when the ineffective assistance claim has itself been procedurally defaulted in state court?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
Yes. A procedurally defaulted ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim cannot serve as cause to excuse the procedural default of another habeas claim unless the petitioner can satisfy the cause-and-prejudice standard for the ineffective-assistance claim itself. The principles of comity and federalism that underlie the procedural default doctrine require that a state's procedural rules be respected. An ineffective assistance claim used to establish 'cause' is an independent constitutional claim that, like any other, must be properly presented to the state courts first, as established in Murray v. Carrier. Allowing a petitioner to use a procedurally defaulted claim as cause without excusing that default would render the exhaustion requirement illusory and undermine the state's interest in correcting its own errors.
Concurring - Justice Breyer
While concurring in the judgment to remand, the majority's holding unnecessarily adds to the complexity of habeas corpus jurisprudence. Once an ineffective-assistance claim has been exhausted in state courts, even through procedural default, it should be treated like any other claim of 'cause' to be evaluated on its merits by the federal court. The majority's rule creates a new anomaly by requiring a nested inquiry into 'cause for the cause,' creating a procedural puzzle that may be insurmountable for prisoners and is not logically required. The proper course is to remand for the lower court to determine if ineffective assistance, or some other cause, existed and, if so, to rule on the merits of the underlying constitutional claim.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the procedural hurdles faced by habeas petitioners, clarifying that an ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim is not a 'magic key' that automatically unlocks procedurally defaulted claims. It establishes a 'nested' or hierarchical application of the cause-and-prejudice standard, meaning the IAC claim itself must navigate state procedural rules correctly. The ruling significantly impacts litigation strategy, forcing counsel to be meticulous in preserving all claims, including IAC, at every stage of the state court process to avoid creating an insurmountable procedural bar in federal court.
