Evitts v. Luce

469 U.S. 387 (1985)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

On March 21, 1976, a Kentucky jury found Lucey (D) guilty of trafficking in controlled substances. His retained counsel filed a timely notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky. D's counsel failed to file a statement of appeal when he filed his brief and the record on appeal on September 12, 1977. When the Commonwealth filed its brief, it included a motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to file a statement of appeal. The Court of Appeals granted this motion because 'appellant has failed to supply the information required by RAP 1.095(a)(1).' App. 37a. D moved for reconsideration, arguing that all of the information necessary for a statement of appeal was included in his brief, albeit in a somewhat different format. At the same time, D tendered a statement of appeal that formally complied with the Commonwealth Rules. The Court of Appeals summarily denied the motion for reconsideration. D sought discretionary review in the Supreme Court of Kentucky, but the judgment of the Court of Appeals was affirmed in a one-sentence order. In a final effort to gain state appellate review of his conviction, D moved the trial court to vacate the judgment or to grant a belated appeal. The trial court denied the motion. D then sought federal habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. He challenged the constitutionality of the Commonwealth's dismissal of his appeal because of his lawyer's failure to file the statement of appeal, on the ground that the dismissal deprived him of his right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court granted respondent a conditional writ of habeas corpus ordering his release unless the Commonwealth either reinstated his appeal or retried him. The Commonwealth appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which reached no decision on the merits but instead remanded the case to the District Court for determination whether respondent had a claim under the Equal Protection Clause. Counsel for both parties stipulated that there was no equal protection issue in the case, The District Court thereupon reissued the conditional writ of habeas corpus. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari.