Document: 498 U.S. 430 111 S.Ct. 860 112 L.Ed.2d 956 Jose M. LOZADAv.George DEEDS, Warden. No. 90-5393. Feb. 19, 1991. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner Lozada was convicted in Nevada state court 1987 of four crimes arising out the possession and sale a controlled substance violation laws that State. filed no direct appeal. After exhausting postconviction remedies, he petition for writ habeas corpus United States District Court Nevada. contended ineffective assistance counsel had deprived him opportunity to appeal his state-court convictions. In particular, alleged attorney failed inform right appeal, procedures time limitations an appointed counsel. The further file notice or ensure received on It also implied been misled when told Lozada's sister case forwarded public defender's office. 2 Without holding hearing claims, federal Magistrate recommended be dismissed. agreed dismissed petition, rejecting ineffective-assistance claim ground petitioner's allegations satisfy standard set forth our decision Strickland v. Washington, 466 668, 104 2052, 80 674 (1984). acknowledged trial counsel's failure petitioner might constitute conduct below constitutional standards. reasoned, however, not indicated what issues would have raised demonstrated succeeded. As result, concluded shown prejudice under test. later denied certificate probable cause denial relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253, again stating show any from errors. Appeals Ninth Circuit one-sentence order. instant certiorari, which we now grant along with motion leave proceed forma pauperis. 3 Barefoot Estelle, 463 880, 892-893, 103 3383, 3394, 77 1090 (1983), delineated standards issuance cause. We Courts ruled "a requires make 'substantial showing [a] right.' " Id., at 893, S.Ct., 3394 (quoting Stewart Beto, 454 F.2d 268, 270, n. (CA5 1971), cert. denied, 406 925, 92 1796, 32 126 (1972)). quoted approval Gordon Willis, 516 F.Supp. 911, 913 (ND Ga.1980) (citing ex rel. Jones Richmond, 245 234 (CA2), 355 846, 78 71, 56 (1957)), explained order substantial who has relief district 'must demonstrate are debatable among jurists reason; could resolve [in different manner]; questions "adequate deserve encouragement further." ' U.S., 4, 4. 4 conclude erred denying because, Barefoot, made effective rested its analysis prong inquiry, presumably basis Appeals' deny believe issue caused by resolved manner than one followed Court. Since Strickland, least two presumed this situation. See Abels Kaiser, 821, 823 (CA10 1990); Estes States, 883 645, 649 (CA8 1989); Rodriquez 395 327, 330, 89 1715, 1717, 23 340 (1969). did cite analyze line authority as reflected Estes, decided before issued ruling. 5 judgment is reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 6 so ordered. 7 Chief Justice REHNQUIST O'CONNOR certiorari.

Category: 0