Opinion ID: 2140929
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Lockhart v. Fretwell: Clarifying the Prejudice Prong

Text: In Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993) Fretwell had been convicted of felony murder by a state jury in Arkansas and sentenced to death. On habeas corpus review, Fretwell alleged that his counsel had been ineffective for failure to object to a jury instruction during the sentencing phase. The objection that the lawyer could have made was valid at the time of trial under a decision of the federal court of appeals for that circuit. However, the decision had been overruled in that circuit by the time Fretwell's habeas case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Writing for a 7-2 majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist held that the lawyer's failure to raise the once viable but now invalid point did not constitute prejudice within the meaning of Strickland 's test for ineffective assistance of counsel. Fretwell, 506 U.S. at 372, 113 S.Ct. at 844. Fretwell enabled the Supreme Court to elaborate on the prejudice that must be shown to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel: [A]n analysis focussing solely on mere outcome determination, without attention to whether the result of the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable, is defective. Id. at 369, 113 S.Ct. at 842. Fretwell did not explain how the unfairness requirement affected Strickland 's outcome-determinative test, other than to say that [t]o set aside a conviction or sentence solely because the outcome would have been different but for counsel's error may grant the defendant a windfall to which the law does not entitle him. Id. at 369-70, 113 S.Ct. at 842-43. Thus, under Fretwell a different outcome at the plea stage but for counsel's errors is constitutionally insignificant if the ultimate result that was reached was neither unfair nor unreliable. Otherwise stated, prejudice requires more than the hope for acquittal by error. Fretwell involved a challenge to a sentence and did not address the guilt or innocence of the accused. However, for three reasons we conclude that the unfairness or unreliability requirement discussed in Fretwell applies to the conviction stage as well. First, the Court squarely held in Hill that Strickland 's two-part test for ineffective assistance also governs convictions based on a plea. It follows that any clarification of Strickland applies equally to the guilty plea setting. Second, Fretwell stated that the  conviction or sentence is not unconstitutional unless the result was unfair or unreliable. Id. (emphasis added). Finally, federal courts of appeals have applied Fretwell in evaluating convictions based on trials. [7]