On June 6, 2011, in Martinez v. Ryan, No. 10-1001, the United States Supreme Court granted the petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The petitioner, Luis Mariano Martinez, is an inmate in the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections. The respondent, Charles L. Ryan, is the Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections. This is the question presented:
Whether a defendant in a state criminal case who is prohibited by state law from raising on direct appeal any claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, but who has a state-law right to raise such a claim in a first post-conviction proceeding, has a federal constitutional right to effective assistance of first post-conviction counsel specifically with respect to his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim.
This is an important case with enormous potential implications in Connecticut and throughout the rest of the nation. In Connecticut, under the Leecan Rule, ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims must be raised in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus; they cannot be raised on direct appeal from a criminal judgment. State v. Leecan, 198 Conn. 517 (1986). Under Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987), there is no federal constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in state habeas corpus proceedings, and, thus, there is no federal constitutional right to the effective assistance of habeas counsel in state court habeas corpus proceedings. Therefore, in Connecticut and other states with rules similar to the Leecan rule, there is no federal constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel for the purpose of presenting federal ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims.
A ruling in favor of the petitioner in Martinez v. Ryan, No. 10-1001, would necessarily overrule Pennsylvania v. Finley to the extent to which state criminal defendants are prohibited from raising federal ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims on direct appeal from their criminal convictions. It would also seem to open the door for the recognition of a federal constitutional right to the appointment of habeas counsel to pursue other federal constitutional claims that could not have been presented at trial or on direct appeal, which would radically change postconviction criminal practice.
The appellate brief of the petitioner was filed on August 4, 2011. The appellate brief of the respondent is due on September 6, 2011. The case is set for oral argument on Tuesday, October 4, 2011.
