Document: 493 U.S. 1 110 S.Ct. 4 107 L.Ed.2d Michael TERRELLv.Terry L. MORRIS, Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. No. 88-7535. Oct. 10, 1989. Page 2 PER CURIAM. Petitioner Terrell is incarcerated in a state prison Ohio. After applying for state-law postconviction relief, he petitioned federal writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1982 ed.). Terrell's petition includes an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. The courts held proceedings that had defaulted this claim by failing raise it when represented new counsel on direct appeal. In so doing, the relied upon State v. Cole, St. 3d 112, 113-114, 443 N.E.2d 169, 171 (1982). Cole rule postdated appeal, which was decided December 30, 1981. Before permitted ineffective-assistance claims collateral challenges even if petitioner not raised those See Hester, 45 St.2d 71, 71-72, 74-75, 341 304, 305, 307 (1976) (permitting go forward despite failure issue appeal); see also supra, St.3d, at N.E.2d, (expressly modifying Hester ). 3 thus could have known would default his counsel's argued Federal District Court invoke its procedural retroactively. Judge agreed and proceeded merits Sixth Circuit disposed pro se appeal per curiam, unpublished opinion. Marshall, 872 F.2d 1029 (1989) (judgment order). Appeals "the properly determined Terrell's" claim, as well several other claims, "were reviewable" because "failure these court proceedings." App. Pet. Cert. A-2. had, however, made no such determination: reached only applicable conviction. neither noted nor addressed retroactivity issue.* 5 Circuit, opinion, affirmed decision never made, reviewed court's actual decision. Review bar issues should be undertaken based correct formulation ruling Court. Accordingly, motion leave proceed forma pauperis certiorari are granted. judgment vacated, case remanded further consistent with 6 It ordered. 7 Chief Justice REHNQUIST, whom WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA join, dissenting. 8 summarily vacates curiam opinion without indicating committed legal error or intervening circumstances require reconsideration Because I view action unwarranted use Court's resources unjustified imposition Appeals, dissent. 9 As explains, concluded " 'the determined' procedurally barred. sole stated reason vacating erroneously attributed conclusion made. Although appears been wrong basis ruling, appellate statement unequivocally expresses agreement This, then, simply affirming district dismissal different from adopted court—a uncommon practice. 10 Underlying summary disposition assumption did consider adequacy courts' holding. before reference Magistrate's report decision, both discussed issue. our place vacate Appeals' supposition failed give sufficient thought own holding, merely we prefer more extended discussion. Unless prepared reverse reliance bar, there setting aside below. This has debated appropriateness performing "error-correcting function," see, e.g., Pennsylvania Bruder, 488 9, 12-13, 109 205, 207-208, 102 172 (1988) (STEVENS, J., dissenting). But doubt vacation lower opinions any suggestion change law unwise Appeals. * author may petitioner's barred default. C-4. Magistrate, resolved favor. question whether Supreme St.3d 169 (1982), given retroactive effect govern significant number clearly attention Moreover, since answer requires familiarity law, benefit views.

Category: 0