counsel did not adequately consult with defendant on his right to appeal and defendant was prejudiced from such failure.

Thompson v. US, No. 05-16970 (11th Cir. March 14, 2007)
After guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine in connection with a drug-smuggling scheme involving crew members on Celebrity Cruise Lines, denial of motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. section 2255 is reversed as counsel did not adequately consult with defendant on his right to appeal and defendant was prejudiced from such failure.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0516970p.pdf

Lockhart v. Fretwell (91-1393), 506 U.S. 364 (1993).

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Blackmun joins, dissenting.

Concerned that respondent Fretwell would otherwise receive the "windfall" of life imprisonment, see ante, at 1, 5, the Court today reaches the astonishing conclusion that deficient performance by counsel does not prejudice a defendant even when it results in the erroneous imposition of a death sentence. The Court's aversion to windfalls seems to disappear, however, when the State is the favored recipient. For the end result in this case is that the State, through the coincidence of inadequate representation and fortuitous timing, may carry out a death sentence that was invalid when imposed.

A rule that allows the State to foist a murder victim’s lawyer onto his accused is not only capricious; it poisons the integrity of our adversary syst

MICKENS V. TAYLOR

A rule that allows the State to foist a murder victim’s lawyer onto his accused is not only capricious; it poisons the integrity of our adversary system of justice.

I respectfully dissent.

---

The Sixth Amendment provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” This protection is applicable to State, as well as federal, criminal proceedings. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). We have long recognized the paramount importance of the right to effective assistance of counsel. United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 653—654 (1984) (“ ‘Of all the rights that an accused person has, the right to be represented by counsel is by far the most pervasive for it affects his ability to assert any other rights he may have’ ”) (citation omitted)).

deficient performance by counsel does not prejudice a defendant even when it results in the erroneous imposition of a death sentence.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

---

No. 91-1393

---

A. L. LOCKHART, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, PETITIONER v. BOBBY RAY FRETWELL

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit

[January 25, 1993]

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Blackmun joins, dissenting.

Concerned that respondent Fretwell would otherwise receive the "windfall" of life imprisonment, see ante, at 1, 5, the Court today reaches the astonishing conclusion that deficient performance by counsel does not prejudice a defendant even when it results in the erroneous imposition of a death sentence. The Court's aversion to windfalls seems to disappear, however, when the State is the favored recipient. For the end result in this case is that the State, through the coincidence of inadequate representation and fortuitous timing, may carry out a death sentence that was invalid when imposed.