State v. Thomas, 124 So. 3d 1049

In 1998 Anthony Thomas was tried and convicted of attempted aggravated burglary; conviction later reversed and remanded after prosecutor comment warranted mistrial on first trial.
At retrial (bench trial) Thomas was convicted of unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling; adjudicated a third-felony offender and sentenced to mandatory life without benefits.
The court of appeal reversed on double-jeopardy grounds, this Court reinstated the conviction, holding the responsive verdict cured the jeopardy issue.
Thomas filed post-conviction relief asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move to quash the retrial on double-jeopardy grounds; the trial court granted relief after an evidentiary hearing.
The State sought review; the Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari and considered whether counsel’s omission was deficient and, if so, whether Thomas was prejudiced under Strickland v. Washington.

Issue	State's Argument	Thomas's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s failure to file a motion to quash on double-jeopardy grounds was objectively unreasonable (Strickland performance prong)	Omission was reasonable: many actors could have raised the issue and counsel properly prioritized trial preparation	Omission was unreasonable because the double-jeopardy defect was obvious and meritorious; failure was an oversight	Counsel’s performance was deficient — failing to raise the meritorious double-jeopardy motion fell below Strickland reasonableness
Whether Thomas was prejudiced (Strickland prejudice prong)	No reasonable probability of a different outcome: the responsive verdict of unauthorized entry cured the double-jeopardy harm and the habitual-offender life sentence would likely have been imposed regardless	Prejudice: retrial on a more serious charge likely influenced the factfinder; a timely motion to quash would have changed the charge and likely the verdict	No prejudice shown: conviction on the non‑jeopardy‑barred responsive offense cured the double‑jeopardy issue and there is no reasonable probability the ultimate life sentence would have differed; Strickland prejudice not satisfied

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (prejudice inquiry focuses on fundamental fairness; outcome‑only differences may not suffice)
Morris v. Mathews, 475 U.S. 237 (conviction on a lesser non‑jeopardy‑barred offense can cure double‑jeopardy defects)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (prejudice may be shown when counsel’s errors in plea context altered outcome; confirms outcome‑determinative Strickland analysis)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (failure to pursue meritorious legal claims can constitute deficient performance)
McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (recognizes right to effective assistance of counsel)