Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 489

529US2

Unit: $U46

[10-07-01 17:18:24] PAGES PGT: OPIN

414

WILLIAMS v. TAYLOR

Opinion of O’Connor, J.

able probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors,
the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
466 U. S., at 694. The Virginia Supreme Court held, in con-
trast, that such a focus on outcome determination was insuf-
ﬁcient standing alone. See Williams v. Warden of Mecklen-
burg Correctional Center, 254 Va. 16, 25, 27, 487 S. E. 2d
194, 199, 200 (1997). Lockhart does not support that broad
proposition. As I explained in my concurring opinion in
that case, “in the vast majority of cases . . . [t]he determina-
tive question—whether there is ‘a reasonable probability
that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of
the proceeding would have been different’—remains un-
506 U. S., at 373 (quoting Strickland, 466 U. S.,
changed.”
at 694).
In his attempt to demonstrate prejudice, Williams
did not rely on any “considerations that, as a matter of law,
ought not inform the [prejudice] inquiry.” Lockhart, supra,
at 373 (O’Connor, J., concurring). Accordingly, as the
Court ably explains, the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision
was contrary to Strickland.

To be sure, as The Chief Justice notes, post, at 417–418
(opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part), the Vir-
ginia Supreme Court did also inquire whether Williams had
demonstrated a reasonable probability that, but for his trial
counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of his sentencing
would have been different. See 254 Va., at 25–26, 487 S. E.
2d, at 199–200.
It is impossible to determine, however, the
extent to which the Virginia Supreme Court’s error with re-
spect to its reading of Lockhart affected its ultimate ﬁnding
that Williams suffered no prejudice. For example, at the
conclusion of its discussion of whether Williams had demon-
strated a reasonable probability of a different outcome at
sentencing, the Virginia Supreme Court faulted the Virginia
Circuit Court for its “emphasis on mere outcome determina-
tion, without proper attention to whether the result of the
criminal proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable.”
254 Va., at 27, 487 S. E. 2d, at 200. As the Court explains,