Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 521.0

529US2

Unit: $U48

[09-26-01 10:25:49] PAGES PGT: OPIN

446

OCTOBER TERM, 1999

Syllabus

EDWARDS, WARDEN v. CARPENTER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the sixth circuit

No. 98–2060. Argued February 28, 2000—Decided April 25, 2000

Respondent pleaded guilty while maintaining his innocence to Ohio mur-
der and robbery charges in exchange for the prosecutor’s agreement
that the plea could be withdrawn if the death penalty was imposed.
The Ohio Court of Appeals afﬁrmed his conviction and sentence of im-
prisonment, and he did not appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. After
pursuing state postconviction relief pro se, respondent, represented by
new counsel, petitioned the Ohio Court of Appeals to reopen his direct
appeal, claiming that his original appellate counsel was constitutionally
ineffective in failing to challenge the sufﬁciency of the evidence sup-
porting his conviction and sentence. The court dismissed the applica-
tion as untimely under Ohio Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(B), and the
Ohio Supreme Court afﬁrmed. Respondent then ﬁled a federal habeas
petition, raising, inter alia, the sufﬁciency-of-the-evidence claim, and
alleging that his appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective in
not raising that claim on direct appeal. The District Court found that
his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was cause excusing the proce-
dural default of his sufﬁciency-of-the-evidence claim because Rule 26(B)
was not an adequate procedural ground to bar federal review of the
ineffective-assistance claim; concluded that respondent’s appellate coun-
sel was constitutionally ineffective; and granted the writ conditioned on
the state appellate court’s reopening of respondent’s direct appeal of the
sufﬁciency-of-the-evidence claim. On cross-appeals, the Sixth Circuit
held that the ineffective-assistance claim served as cause to excuse the
default of the sufﬁciency-of-the-evidence claim, whether or not the for-
mer claim had been procedurally defaulted, because respondent had
exhausted the ineffective-assistance claim by presenting it to the state
courts in his application to reopen the direct appeal. Finding preju-
dice from counsel’s failure to raise the sufﬁciency-of-the-evidence claim
on direct appeal, it directed the District Court to issue the writ con-
ditioned upon the state court’s according respondent a new culpability
hearing.

Held: A procedurally defaulted ineffective-assistance claim can serve as
cause to excuse the procedural default of another habeas claim only if
the habeas petitioner can satisfy the “cause and prejudice” standard
with respect to the ineffective-assistance claim itself. The procedural