Summary
Martinez v. Ryan: U. S. Supreme Court review of a child molester’s claim that his conviction should be overturned because his state-appointed appeals lawyer failed to attack the effectiveness of his trial attorney. Luis Martinez was convicted of two incidents of sexual conduct with his 11-year-old stepdaughter on a July morning in 1999. Evidence at trial included the victim’s videotaped description of the assaults to a social worker and a DNA match of Martinez’s semen on her nightgown. Following his conviction, Martinez’s claims challenging his trial and sentencing were rejected by the state courts on direct appeal, and his appointed lawyer reported that she could find no worthy claims to raise on state collateral review. Later, represented by a different lawyer, Martinez claimed that his appellate lawyer was ineffective because she did not find flaws in the performance of his trial lawyer. This claim was reviewed and rejected by two state courts, the federal district court and the court of appeals. When the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider Martinez’s appeal, CJLF joined the case. CJLF argued there is no constitutional right to a government paid lawyer for collateral review or habeas corpus, and therefore no right to challenge the effectiveness of a lawyer appointed for those types of post-conviction proceedings. The Supreme Court's decision retains the rule we argued for as the general rule. However, it carved out a narrow exception for states such as Arizona that do not allow ineffective assistance claims to be made on direct appeal (the first review of a conviction). For these states, ineffective assistance on the state collateral review will be considered "cause" to raise the ineffectiveness as trial counsel on federal habeas corpus. [CJLF brief in PDF.]
