Document: 128 S. Ct. 743 (2008) Randall WRIGHT, Sheriff, Shawano County, Wisconsin, Petitioner, v. Joseph L. VAN PATTEN. No. 07-212. Supreme Court of United States. Decided January 7, 2008. *744 PER CURIAM. The Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that respondent Van Patten was entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, reasoning his lawyer's assistance presumptively ineffective owing participation in a plea hearing by speaker phone. Deppisch, 434 F.3d 1038 (2006). We granted certiorari, vacated judgment, and remanded case further consideration light Carey Musladin, 549 U.S. ___, 127 649, 166 Ed. 2d 482 On remand, adhered its original decision, concluding "[n]othing Musladin requires our 2006 opinion be changed." Endicott, 489 827, 828 (2007). grant petition certiorari now before us this time reverse judgment Circuit. I charged with first-degree intentional homicide pleaded no contest reduced charge reckless homicide. His counsel not physically present at but linked courtroom After state trial court imposed maximum term 25 years prison, retained different moved Wisconsin withdraw no-contest plea. thrust motion Patten's Sixth Amendment right had been violated counsel's physical absence from hearing. noted that, law, postconviction will only if defendant establishes "manifest injustice" clear convincing evidence. See State Pattten, 96-3036-CR (Wis.App., May 28, 1997), App. Pet. Cert. A47-A48. While acknowledged "the violation defendant's may constitute manifest injustice," id., A48, it found lawyer did violate counsel: "The transcript neither indicates any deficiency colloquy, nor suggests attorney's telephone interfered way [Van Patten's] ability communicate attorney about confirmed he thoroughly discussed decision satisfied legal representation received. gave opportunity speak privately over phone questions plea, declined. Further, when exercised allocution sentencing, personal presence attorney, raised objection plea." Id., A49-A50. Applying Strickland Washington, 466 668, 104 2052, 80 674 (1984), concluded "[t]he record does support, appellate brief include, argument performance deficient or prejudicial," 96-3036-CR, A51, denied motion. *745 declined review, petitioned writ habeas corpus 2254 Federal District Court. relief, reversed. It claim should have resolved, Strickland's two-pronged test (which showing prejudice defendant), standard States Cronic, 648, 2039, 657 (1984) (under which presumed). Although recognized "presents [a] novel ... question," F.3d, 1040, conceded "[u]nder Strickland, seems [that] would viable claim," 1042, "it is must resolved Cronic," 1043. resolution favor. prison warden's pending, decided supra. invoked Court's cases recognizing "that certain practices are so inherently prejudicial they deprive fair trial," S.Ct., 651. issue significance these precedents bars on "adjudicated merits" court, unless court's "was contrary to, involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established as determined States." 2254(d)(1). conduct private actors. "inheren[t] prejudic[e]" test, we thus far applied involving government-sponsored conduct, see, e.g., Estelle Williams, 425 501, 96 1691, 48 126 (1976); Holbrook Flynn, 475 560, 106 1340, 89 525 (1986), extend independently acting spectators. supra, 654 ("[A]lthough articulated inherent applies Williams never spectators' conduct. Indeed, part Flynnasking whether furthered essential interestsuggests those apply state-sponsored practices"). For reason, reversed Appeals' relief. Musladin's explanation "clearly law" requirement prompted remand consideration. A majority panel reaffirmed however, ground "[u]nlike concern open constitutional because has long defense actually constructively absent critical stage proceedings." 828. Judge Coffey disagreed, observing presumed participates rather than appearance." Ibid. (emphasis deleted). He Majority Opinion comport Musladin," ibid., dissented erroneous allow" "to stand written," 829. reach same conclusion. II *746 ordinarily claims stage. Hill Lockhart, 474 52, 58, 366, 88 203 (1985) ("[T]he two-part Washington challenges guilty pleas based counsel"). And context Cronic "recognized narrow exception holding who asserts demonstrate deficient, also prejudiced defense." Florida Nixon, 543 175, 190, 125 551, 160 565 (2004) (discussing Cronic). "without inquiring into actual requiring show effect Bell Cone, 535 685, 695, 122 1843, 152 914 (2002), "circumstances [exist] likely accused cost litigating their particular unjustified," 658, 2039. "when likelihood lawyer, even fully competent one, could provide effective small presumption appropriate without inquiry U.S., 659-660, 2039,[*] one circumstance warranting "complete denial counsel," is, "counsel [is] either totally absent, prevented assisting during proceeding," 659, n. 25, No Court, squarely addresses case, see 1040 (noting question"), replace factual context. Our do hold treated par total absence. Even agree tend perform better phone, necessarily follow mere contact amounted "prevented [counsel] accused," entail Cronic. question circumstances less well otherwise would, result such poor effects worth time. Cf. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 2557, 2563, 165 409 (2006) (Sixth ensures "effective (not mistake-free) representation" original)). categorical answer question, matter several proceedings hardly point toward one. constitutionally effective; Magistrate Judge, disputed conclusion; itself stated *747 claim." 1042. Because give presented, let alone favor, cannot said `unreasonabl[y] appli[ed] law.'" (quoting 2254(d)(1)). Under explicit terms 2254(d)(1), therefore, unauthorized. * Petitioner tells "[i]n urging [the State] condone, recommend, encourage practice clients person proceedings, nonadversarial hearings case," 5, acknowledges "[p]erhaps, similar facts direct federal appeal, properly reached here," ibid. own merits practice, another day, turns recognition law conclusion justifies collateral reversed, consistent opinion. ordered. JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring judgment. An unfortunate drafting error makes necessary join case. In explained some violations arise unjustified." One exists "denied prosecution." 662, "presence" lawyers "is means through other rights secured." 653, Regrettably, establish" full scope attorney. apparently read counsel" mean court." Initially, all three judges assumed stake one's side stages proceeding.[*] 04-1276, U.S.App. LEXIS 5147 (CA7, Feb. 27, 2006) *748 member requested vote rehearing en banc). my view, interpretation correct. fact 1984, decided, parties contemplated attorneys were flesh explains author's failure add words "in court" after word "present." As today, reasonableness narrower reading "objectively unreasonable." Taylor, 529 362, 409, 120 1495, 146 389 (2000). Cronic's references "totally absent" counsel, opinion's more explicitly [in court]," acquiesce state-court law. doing so, emphasize today's say courts' correct, accepted come review 2254. ante, 746-747; 410 ("[A]n incorrect law"). NOTES [*] "there breakdown adversarial process," entirely fails subject prosecution's meaningful testing," made "[w]hen spoke possibility presuming prosecutor's indicated complete." 696-697, (2002). undisputed met here. unanimous panel, Evans length why proceedingthe hearingwhich resulted sentence imprisonment years. wrote, part: Amendment's right-to-counsel guarantee recognizes `the obvious truth average professional skill protect himself brought tribunal power take life liberty.' Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 462-63, 58 1019, 82 1461 (1938). `Of has, represented most pervasive affects assert have.' 654, 2039 (citation omitted). Thus, `guiding hand' every against him. Powell Alabama, 287 45, 53, 53 55, 77 158 (1932); well-settled proceeding enters (a or, here, contest) `critical stage' where crucial `defenses irretrievably lost, then there asserted.' Hamilton 368 54, 157, 7 114 (1961). White Maryland, 373 59, 60, 83 1050, 10 193 (1963); ex rel. Thomas O'Leary, 856 F.2d 1011, 1014 (7th Cir.1988). bargaining norm exception, criminal defendants change prosecution. deciding dispense inquiry, evaluate `surrounding make unlikely received counsel,' 666, `justify [the] conviction insufficiently reliable satisfy Constitution,' id. although shows judge best colloquy care, arrangements impossible `assistance counsel' anything perfunctory sense. stood prosecutor. Unlike usual turn advice, up misunderstandings, seek reassurance, discuss last-minute misgivings. Listening audio connection, detect respond cues client's demeanor might understand aspects proceeding, changing mind. If wished converse anyone else effectively eavesdrop. (We assume district balk expected consultations staff via speakerphone `on record,' taking word.) advance line place, `perhaps' provided, required special request and, apparently, break proceedings. short, auspicious setting someone waive very valuable rights." 1038, 1042-1043 (C.A.7 2006).

Category: 0