*1 ALABAMA COMMISSIONER, THOMAS, MAPLES v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS January Argued 10-63. October No. 201 1 *3 Gregory argued petitioner. G. Garre cause for With Ballenger him on the briefs were J. Scott D. Derek Smith. argued Neiman, C. Jr.,
John General of Alabama, Solicitor respondent. the cause for him on brief With were Strange, Attorney Parker, Luther General, Jr., William G. Attorney Rosenkranz, Assistant General, Q. Nicholas Attorney Deputy General.* *4 *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for Constitution Franklin, Sloan, Virginia E. Emery, Jonathan S. Mark
Project et by al. Lynch, Timothy Ilya Shapiro; Appellate and for Alabama Former Court Borden; Lisa W. by Legal et al. Justices for the NAACP Defense & Educa- Payton, Swarns, Adegbile, John Debo P. Fund, Inc., by tional Christina Civin, Spital; Joshua and Samuel for the National Association of Criminal Blatt, Frame, Anthony Lisa S. J. R. Lawyers Defense Steven by et al. Hacker; Shapiro, Jonathan Walter by and and for A. DeMott Deborah Dellinger, DeMott, Metlitsky, pro Anton and Ms. se.
Briefs of amici curiae urging filed affirmance were for State of Abbott, Daniel T. Texas, by Greg Hodge, Attorney Texas et al. General of opinion of the Court. Ginsburg delivered the Justice capital prisoner Cory Maples sentenced R. is an Alabama trial, At the murder of two individuals. to death in minimally lawyers, by represented appointed he two was experience capital paid cases. and with scant alleging sought postconviction ineffec- court, relief state trial infirmities. and several other of counsel tive assistance by August petition, New written two filed His attorneys serving pro with the both bono, associated York large attor- law firm. An Alabama New York-based same ney, designated of the counsel, moved the admission as local by pro New hac vice. As understood out-of-state counsel appearance, counsel would facilitate their counsel, York local in the case. no substantive involvement but would undertake peti- Maples’ postconviction of while In the summer pending court, in the trial his New tion remained Alabama employment new dis- firm; York left the law their They Maples. continuing represent did them from abled departure consequent inabil- and not inform of their they ity did seek to serve as counsel. Nor they anyone nor trial court’s leave to withdraw. Neither Clemmer, Attorney Don General, Deputy Gen- Attorney First Assistant Aston, Mitchell, F. Adam W eral, General, Assist- Jonathan Solicitor and General, respective by Attorneys ant and for their Solicitor General Delaware, Arizona, Joseph R. III of as follows: Tom Horne Biden of States Georgia, Lawrence G. Florida, Pamela Bondi of Samuel S. Olens of Jo “Buddy” Hood of Wasden of D. Caldwell of Jim Idaho, Louisiana, James Mexico, E. Bruning Gary King Jon K. Nebraska, Mississippi, of of New Wilson Kelly Pruitt Linda L. Alan Oklahoma, Scott Pennsylvania, of of Carolina, Marty Jackley Cooper, Robert E. J. Dakota, of South of South Jr., II L. T Cuccinelli Mark Kenneth Tennessee, Utah, Shurtleff Hollen Robert M. McKenna J. B. Van Virginia, Washington, of Wiscon- Gregory Phillips A. sin, the Criminal Justice Wyoming; and for Scheidegger. Kent S. Legal Foundation Briefs of amici curias were filed for the Alabama Criminal Defense Morse, Walker; Jr., by Wayne Susan J. Lawyers Association D. Reece Lawrence J. Fox and Susan al. Legal Ethics Professors et Martyn, pro se. both
else moved the substitution of counsel able to handle Ma- ples’ case. May Maples’ peti-
In 2003, the Alabama trial court denied posted tion. Notices of the court’s order were New York at the firm address of law with which they postings had been associated. returned, Those were unopened, attempted trial clerk, who further no mailing. acting no in fact With of record on Ma- ples’ appeal behalf, time ran out. Maples petitioned corpus a writ
Thereafter, of habeas in federal court. The District Court the Elev- and, turn, rejected pointing petition, Circuit, enth to the timely Maples’ default in i. court, state failure e., denying postconviction the Alabama trial court’s order him Maples, relief. uncontested, it is was blameless for the default. question up
The sole taken this. Court has for review is extraordinary Maples’ whether, case, on the facts of there is “cause” there to excuse the default. maintains that lawyers vigilantly representing is, for the he believed to be him court, had abandoned the case without leave of without informing Maples they longer represent no him, could any securing counsel. without recorded substitution of We agree. unrepre- left counsel, Abandoned petition, posteonviction sented at a critical time state for his any protect pro himself se. and he lacked a clue of need to system lay just In the default circumstances, these would requisite cause door. that the death-cell Satisfied judgment. Circuit’s shown, has been we reverse the Eleventh I A lawyers ap- eligibility requirements for Alabama sets low pointed represent indigent capital at trial. defendants Evaluating Accu- Association, American Bar Fairness *6 Penalty Systems: Death racy Alabama in Death State (June 2006) (hereinafter Report Penalty 117-120 Assessment Appellate Court Report); ABA Brief Former (hereinafter Former Jus- 7-8 al. Amici Curiae Justices et as Brief). only of Appointed a member need counsel tices experience years’ prior in and have “five the Alabama Bar § practice 13A-5-54 criminal law.” Ala. Code the active of (2006). required. capital Experience For- cases is not provide, or Brief 7-8. Nor does State mer Justices gain, any capital-case-specific require appointed counsel Report training. 129-131; professional ABA education or Brief 14-16. Former Justices penalty
Appointed in cases are also under- counsel death Report compensated. Brief Former Justices 124-129; ABA capital paid appointed defense 1999, 12-14. the State Until per attorneys expended just in court for time hour “$40.00 reasonably expended per out hour for time and $20.00 [the defendant’s] preparation Ala. case.” in §15-12-21(d) (1995). litiga- Although penalty death Code plainly capped fees $1,000 intensive,1 tion is time the State attorneys capital for out-of-court recoverable defense attorneys today, court-appointed re- work. Ibid.2 Even 15-12-21(d) (2011). § only per ceive hour. $70 among guar- Nearly not States, alone Alabama does representation indigent capital in antee defendants postconviction proceedings. Report 158-160; 111-112, ABA that de capital from found study
1 One of federal trials 1990 to 1997 1,480 spent average preparing fense hours out-of-court Cases, Penalty Death Com defendant’s ease. Subcommittee on Federal States, Services, the United mittee Defender Judicial Conference of Concerning Penalty Federal Death Cases: Recommendations Cost 1998). Quality (May Representation of Defense 1999, cap In on fees for out-of-court work State removed 15-12-21(d) (2010 Perhaps § capital Supp.). cases. Ala. Code Cum. 2006, includ coincidentally, of the inmates on death row 70% Alabama’s $1,000 cap was in effect. ABA ing Maples, had been convicted when the Report 126. elected, instead,
Former Brief 33. The has Justices State rely [out-of-state] typically “to on the well-funded efforts Opposition Allen, volunteers.” Brief in in Barbour v. O. T. p. at- Thus, No. 23. as of 86% of the 06-10605, torneys representing Alabama’s death row inmates in state Equal proceedings collateral review “either worked for the (headed by professor Bryan Justice Initiative NYU Law Stevenson), public groups Inno- out-of-state interest like the Project, Oppo- mega-firm.” cence or an out-of-state Brief prisoners occasion, sition some 16, n. 4. On sentenced postconviction representation death at all. See receive no (“[A]s Report approximately April 2006, ABA fifteen *7 in final rounds of state of Alabama’s death row inmates the them.”). appeals lawyer represent to B system place charged when, This was in Alabama Stacy Maples capital victims, murder; with two counts of the Terry Barry Dewayne were II, Alan and Robinson night murders, the had been out on friends on the who, guilty, Maples pleaded case with him. and his town represented by proceeded two court- where he was trial, to Only appointed attorneys. them had earlier one of Alabama capital case. Tr. 3081. Neither counsel had served previously phase capital penalty case. Com- tried the lawyer capped pensation time $1,000 for each preparing Maples’ spent case, and $40 out of court § See Ala. Code 15-12-21 hour for in-court services. per (1995). jury
Finding Maples guilty recom- counts, both was 10 to The vote that he be sentenced to death. mended requires a death recom- 2, the minimum number Alabama 13A-5-46(f) (“The (1994) § deci- mendation. See Ala. Code jury must be of death recommend a sentence sion of the to jury’s jurors.”). Accepting the at least 10 based on a vote of Maples to death. recommendation, the trial court sentenced Appeals appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal On direct Supreme the convictions and the Alabama Court affirmed (Ala. 1999); parte Maples, Ex 758 So. 2d and sentence. (Ala. 1999). We State, 758 So. 2d Crim. v. (2000). S. 830 Alabama, v. 531 U. denied certiorari. post- represented Maples in Two out-of-state volunteers Ingen- proceedings: and Clara conviction Jaasi Munanka of the Sulli- the New offices Housz, both associates at York required time, & firm. At the Alabama van Cromwell law when seek- associate local counsel out-of-state ing practice pro Alabama hac before an admission vice proceeding. regardless Rule Gov- court, of the nature (herein- (2000) erning Ala. State Bar VII Admission VII).3 prescribed after The Alabama Rule further Rule attorney’s “appear orders, notices, that the name on all local pleadings, cause,” and other documents filed and “accept joint responsibility local counsel several foreign attorney parties opposing coun- client, to the agency in or all matters sel, and to the court administrative VII(C). [relating case].” Rule Ingen-Housz Ala- Huntsville, Munanka and associated local bama, John Butler as counsel. Notwithstand- ing obligations Mu- Butler informed law, under Ingen-Housz, nanka that he serve outset,” “at the would *8 only purpose allowing New as local for the two counsel attorneys appear Maples. pro York hac vice on behalf of App. “resources, for Given lack of Pet. Cert. 255a. his experience,” [and] & available time Butler told Sullivan lawyers, Cromwell he not with substantive issues could “deal attorneys in ac- Ibid. case.” The Sullivan & Cromwell cepted arrangement Id., at This Butler’s conditions. 257a. attorneys, appears, was between out-of-state and local it 2006, Governing In Alabama Rule VII. Rule Admission revised (2009). rule, to the Bar VII Under the new the State allows Ala. State in represent pro indigent counsel to bono criminal defendants out-of-state postconviction proceedings without involvement of local counsel. Ibid. (“The hardly atypical. See Former Brief Justices is fact attorneys postconviction that local counsel for out-of-state in litigation nothing provide do most often other than the mech- admitted.”). foreign attorneys anism for to be pro Maples petition With the aid of his bono counsel, filed a postconviction relief under Alabama Rule of Criminal Among 32.4 Procedure other claims, asserted that court-appointed attorneys provided his constitutionally in- during guilt penalty phases effective assistance both capital App. alleged, regard, He trial. 29-126. in this inexperienced attorneys that his and underfunded failed develop and raise an obvious intoxication did defense, object egregious prosecutorial to several instances mis- woefully underprepared penalty phase conduct, for the responded by moving summary of his trial. The State Maples’ petition. dismissal of On December 27, 2001, the trial court denied the State’s motion.
Some later, seven months in the summer of both Ingen-Housz App. Munanka and left Sullivan & Cromwell. gained clerkship to Pet. for Cert. 268a. Munanka with judge; Ingen-Housz accepted position a federal with the European Belgium. Commission Ibid. Neither departure told of their from & Sullivan Cromwell or resulting inability represent of their him. to continue to In disregard 6.2, of Alabama see Ala. Rule Crim. Proc. law, attorney sought Comment, neither trial court’s leave Compounding App. withdraw, to Pet. for Cert. 223a. Mu- Ingen-Housz’s nanka’s and other Sullivan inaction, no & lawyer appearance Maples’ behalf, Cromwell entered an the court counsel, moved to or otherwise notified substitute any change Maples’ representation. Ibid. period, passed. During this time Another nine months assigned case Sullivan & Cromwell appearances sought to the Bar, admission entered resubmitted, only Originally August petition filed 22-24, alterations, 28-142. minor in December 2001. See *9 Maples’ Alabama court on or otherwise advised behalf, longer Maples’ Ingen-Housz at- that Munanka were no and (along torneys. Ingen-Housz But- with and Thus, Munanka ler) “attorneys Maples’ only, rec- listed, and remained ord.” Ibid. May things court, the trial when,
There stood Maples’ hearing, denying holding without entered order petition. App. of the Alabama 146-225.5 The clerk Rule copies three attor- of the order to trial court mailed cop- Ingen-Housz’s neys of record. He sent Munanka’s and address, York which ies to Sullivan & Cromwell’s New pair provided upon entering appearances. had their copies Cromwell, When those arrived at Sullivan & departed. Ingen-Housz long had Munanka since & were to another Sullivan notices, however, not forwarded attorney. employee sent a mailroom Instead, Cromwell unopened envelopes back the court. “Returned stamped Attempted, the enve- Unknown” was Sender — Op- lope App. Reply to Brief addressed to Munanka. envelope position stamp appeared 8a. A on the similar Ingen-Housz, along nota- the handwritten addressed to 7a. Id., tion “Return to Firm.” Sender —Left unopened Upon receiving envelopes he had back the Ingen-Housz, mailed to Munanka particular, clerk took In the clerk did not no further action. telephone Ingen-Housz personal contact at the Munanka or pro they provided in their numbers or home addresses Application applications. Ingen-Housz hac vice Verified p. Mu- VII, 1; Practice Rule Admission To Under Application nanka Practice Under Verified for Admission To (C. p. State, Rule C. VII, v. No. CC-95-842.60 Ala.). Morgan Cty., & did clerk alert Sullivan Nor observed, contradiction, trial Maples’ attorneys that the One of without that the copy proposed court’s order was a “word for word of the Order Id., [December State had submitted its Motion to Dismiss.” [with] 2001] at 300. *10 copy or
Cromwell Butler. Butler received his order, but did not act on it. to Pet. for Cert. 256a. He as- Ingen-Housz, sumed that Munanka and who had been “CC’d” filing appeal. on the order, would take care of an Ibid. Maples’ appeal. Meanwhile, the ticked on clock Under Al- Appellate Maples days abama’s Rules of Procedure, had 42 May appeal a file notice from the trial court’s 22, 2003 denying petition Maples’ postconviction order for relief. 4(a)(1)(2000). appeal Rule filed, No notice was time filing expired July for allowed on 2003. August
A little a later, 13, 2003, over month on Attorney Hayden, attorney repre- Assistant Jon General senting Maples’ proceedings, the State collateral review directly Maples. App. sent letter to Pet. for Cert. 253a- Hayden’s 254a. letter informed of the missed dead- initiating appeal system, line for within the State’s during notified him that four weeks remained which he could Hayden petition. file a federal habeas Ibid. mailed the let- Maples only, prison using copy ter to his address. Ibid. No attorneys Maples’ anyone record, was sent to or to else acting Maples’ behalf. Ibid.
Upon receiving Maples immediately letter, the State’s con- telephoned Id., tacted mother. at 258a. She Sullivan & inquire Prompted Cromwell to about her son’s case. Ibid. attorneys her Leeuw, Sullivan & Cromwell Marc De call, Duffy, Kathy through Felice Brewer submitted motion, denying asking Butler, the trial court to its order reissue thereby restarting 42-day ap- petition, Rule 32 peal period. Id., at 222a. noting id., at motion, 222a-225a,
The trial court denied the Ingen-Housz had withdrawn from the Munanka and not attorneys consequently, case and, were “still of record for petitioner,” id., Furthermore, added, at 223a. the court attorneys “yet Duffy, De and Brewer been Leeuw, appearances practice admitted to in Alabama” or “entered as the court “How,” asked, of record.” Ibid. “can going on Decatur, Alabama know what is Clerk a Circuit at 223a-224a. Id., York, firm in New York?” in a law Declining New for the notice to blame the clerk missed “unwilling into sub- to enter deadline, the said it terfuge gloss counsel over made order mistakes petitioner.” Ibid. Ap- petitioned the Alabama of Criminal next Court granting peals to file an mandamus, him leave a writ of appeal. Rejecting Maples’ plea, the Court out-of-time *11 Appeals although clerk had determined the that, Criminal duty notify parties the resolution of of the “assumed petition,” Maples’s 32 that obli- Rule the clerk satisfied had sending attorneys gation at the to the of record notices attorneys provided. Id., at 234a-235a. addresses those receipt observed, of the the court sufficed order, Butler’s notify light apparent all “in of their co-counsel (quoting Kellett, 489 Id., at v. status.” 235a-236a Thomas (Ala. 1986)). Supreme The Court 2d 555 So. summarily judg- Appeals’ Court affirmed the of Criminal App. denied ment, 237a, to Pet. for Cert. this cer- Court (2005). Maples Alabama, 543 U. tiorari, v. S. 1148 Having postconviction remedies, exhausted his state Addressing sought corpus Maples the federal habeas relief. Maples stated ineffective-assistanee-of-trial-eounsel claims petition, Maples urged in his federal State for- the that Maples present indeed, did, ever forfeited those claims. 32) (Rule postconviction petition, claims in his state timely appeal the trial he not from observed, but did State petition. default, That court’s denial of his precluded maintained, State federal-court consideration Maples replied of the claims.6 that the should default 6 argued In opposing request appeal, for an out-of-time the State Supreme appeal In to the Alabama that such an unwarranted. Court was context, “may postcon- his Maples present that State noted still Record, court.” Doc. No. [the habeas] viction federal claims p. 22, position 4. current with that n. The State’s is in some tension observation. “through
excused, he because missed the deadline (internal App. quotation no fault of his own.” marks omitted). Maples
The District Court determined that
had defaulted
his
claims,
ineffective-assistance
and that he had not shown
App.
“cause” sufficient to overcome the default.
to Pet. for
argue
Cert.
49a-55a.
court understood
postconviction
any lapse
errors
committed
counsel,
part
provided
req-
on the
of the
court clerk Alabama,
uisite “cause” to excuse his failure to meet
42-
Alabama’s
days-to-appeal
argument
Id.,
Rule.
at 55a. Such an
inadmissible,
ruled,
the court
this
because
Court, Coleman
Thompson,
(1991),
v.
A divided of the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. (2009) curiam). (per v. 586 F. Allen, 3d 879 In accord Appeals’ majority the District Court, Court of held that Maples defaulted his ineffective-assistance claims state by failing timely appeal, id., file a notice of at 890, *12 Maples’ and Coleman rendered of un- assertion “cause” acceptable, 3d, 586 F. at 891.
Judge Id., Barkett at dissented. 895-898. She concluded Appeals that the Alabama Court of Criminal had acted “arbi- trarily” refusing grant Maples’ request for an out-of- appeal. involving “indistinguish- time at Id., 896. In a case Judge appellate able facts,” noted, Barkett the Alabama appeal. petitioner court had the late allowed to file a Ibid. (Ala. (citing Marshall v. 2d 899 State, 898, 884 So. Crim. 2002)). application 42-days-to-appeal the Inconsistent of Judge inadequate “rendered] rule, said, rule an Barkett ground Maples’s on which to bar federal review of claims.” justice, 586 F. at re- 3d, added, 897. The interests of she quired Maples’ exceptional review claims in of the of view high involved, and circumstances stakes absence any part. Maples’ fault on Ibid.
280 the uncommon granted whether certiorari to decide
We adequate Ma- to excuse presented here establish cause facts ples’ procedural (2011). U. S. default. 562 I—I I—l A may en- not be prisoner’s claims a habeas rule, state As n state court (1) [has] a federal “when tertained prisoner had [those] claims because declined to address (2) requirement/ ‘the procedural failed meet a state pro- adequate independent state judgment on state rests grounds.’” 307, U. Martin, 562 S. Walker v. cedural (2011) 729-730). bar to (quoting Coleman, S., U. prisoner may can if “the however, lifted, be federal review [in [procedural] state default for the cause demonstrate alleged prejudice violation court] and actual as a result Wainwright Sykes, 433 v. Id., 750; of federal law.” see (1977). U. 84-85 S. single granted we review, on we
Given the issue which purposes the Ala- decision, that assume, will this Appeals’ to consider of Criminal refusal bama Court independent and claims on ineffective-assistance rested namely, Maples’ adequate procedural ground: failure to state satisfy requiring to be filed Alabama’s Rule notice days Accord- the trial final order. within 42 from court’s question ingly, whether we confine our consideration to ap- missed notice has shown cause to excuse the peal deadline. “something procedural where for a exists
Cause default fairly petitioner, something that cannot external to the comply ‘impeded [his] efforts to him[,] attributed to . . . ” at 753 Coleman, S., 501 U. rule.’ State’s (1986);empha- (quoting Murray v. U. S. Carrier, All post- part prisoner’s original). Negligence of a sis in *13 attorney qualify Coleman, does not as “cause.” conviction Coleman, be- is we so, 501 U. at 753. That reasoned S., prisoner’s agent, attorney “well- the and under the is cause
281 agency principles principal settled law,” the bears the risk negligent part agent. on the Id., conduct of his at 753- Department 754. See also Irwin v. Veterans Affairs, (“Under (1990) system representative 498 U. S. 92 89, our litigation, party by ‘each is deémed bound the of his acts ” lawyer-agent.’ (quoting Link v. Wabash R. Co., 626, 370 U. S. (1962))). petitioner’s postconviction 634 Thus, when a at- torney filing petitioner deadline, misses a is bound oversight rely and cannot it to establish Coleman, cause. general 501 U. S., We at 753-754. do not disturb that rule. markedly presented, A different is situation however, attorney when an his abandons client without notice, thereby Having occasions the default. severed principal-agent relationship, attorney longer or acts, representative. fails to act, as the client’s See 1 Restate- (Third) § Lawyers Governing ment of Law 31, Comment / (1998) (“Withdrawal, proper improper, whether or termi- client.”). lawyer’s authority nates the to act for the His acts fairly [the or omissions therefore “cannot be attributed to client].” g., Coleman, S., 501 U. 753. See, e. Jamison v. (CA8 1992)(attorney Lockhart, 1377, 975 F. 2d 1380 conduct may.provide cause to a excuse state default attorney where, as a result of a conflict of interest, [petitioner’s] agent”); “ceased to State, be Porter v. 339 Ark. (1999) (finding “good 15, 16-19, W. 3d 74-76 cause” S. petitioner’s timely petition failure to file habeas where petitioner’s attorney representation terminated with- notifying petitioner taking “any out without formal record”). steps withdraw as Our Florida, recent decision Holland v. 560 U. S. (2010), one-year is That case instructive. involved missed § 2244(d), prescribed filing deadline, S. C. U. a fed- petition. presented eral first, Holland two habeas issues: 2244(d) § equi- whether time limitation can tolled for attorney’s unpro- table and, second, whether an reasons, “extraordinary fessional can ever as an conduct count justifying equitable tolling. U. S., circumstance” *14 282 omitted). yes (internal quotation answered marks We
651 questions. to both recognized attor- that an issue, Court
On the second filing miscalculating negligence, example, dead- ney’s a statutory tolling time provide a a basis line, does concurring in id., at 651-652; at 656 Id., limit. (Alito, J., judgment); Florida, part concurring v. see Lawrence in (2007). petitioner, however, The Holland 327, 336 549 U. S. negligence gravamen his attorney of urged was not lawyer had de- complaint. he that his Rather, asserted any relationship his client: with from trust tached himself complained petitioner “[My lawyer] me,” the has abandoned (brackets quota- at and internal S., 560 637 to the court. U. omitted); 310, 320 F. 3d Frank, Nara v. 264 tion marks see (CA3 2001) hearing (ordering effective a a client’s on whether one-year lawyer tolling of the his merited abandonment petition). filing a deadline for federal habeas concurring opinion homed Holland, in In a Alito Justice attorney difference between a claim on the essential attorney egregious, a claim that an however error, essentially Hol- 659. S., his client. 560 U. abandoned category: alleged plea abandonment fit the latter He land’s near-total failure to communicate “evidenced counsel’s many inquiries petitioner’s petitioner respond or to years.” requests period id., Ibid.; see of several over (majority opinion). true, If 636-637, 652 Alito Justice allegations explained, “petitioner’s to establish would suffice extraordinary eontrol[:] beyond Common his circumstances constructively litigant dictates that a cannot be held sense operat- attorney responsible is not for the conduct of an who ing meaningful Id., agent any that word.” as his sense of at 659.7 Florida, (2010), a federal 7Holland v. tolling 560 U. S. 631 involved (1991), Thompson, while Coleman v. bar, concerned
time U. S. Holland, default in state court. See excusing cause for reason, however, be S., why the distinction U. at 650-651. We see agree agency principles, We under that, a client cannot be charged with the acts or omissions who has abandoned failing him. can Nor a client be faulted for to act on his own behalf when he lacks reason to believe his attor- neys representing record, fact, are not him. We there- inquire fore whether has shown *15 thereby supplying “extraordinary record him, abandoned beyond necessary circumstances control,” ibid., his to lift the petition. state bar to his federal
B petition From the time he filed his initial Rule 32 until well appealing after time ran out for the trial court’s denial petition, Maples only of that attorneys three of record: Ingen-Housz, Munanka, Maples, and Butler. Unknown to lawyers not serving one attorney of these inwas fact as his during days permitted appeal the 42 for an from the trial court’s order. represented State that contends & Sullivan Cromwell
Maples throughout postconviction proceedings. his state Accordingly, urges, Maples the State cannot establish aban- continuing through donment counsel the six al- weeks noticing lowed for from the trial court’s denial of petition. disagree. undisputed Rule 32 We It is Ingen-Housz agency relationship Munanka and severed their Maples long with before the default occurred. See Brief for Respondent (conceding that the in two erred case). failing to file motions to withdraw from the Both Mu- Ingen-Housz employ nanka and left Sullivan & Cromwell’s the summer of least 2002, at nine months before denying trial court entered order its 32 relief. Rule employment Pet. for Their Cert. 258a. new as a —Munanka attorney tween negligence abandonment should hold both contexts. employee of judge, Ingen-Housz anas a federal
law clerk for Belgium from European them Commission —disabled continuing Maples. represent Code of Conduct 4(D)(3)(1999) judicial (prohibiting Employees, Canon Judicial against “litigation federal, employees participating in from European government”); Commission, Staff state or local European Tit. Regulations Communities, of the Officials (2004) (employees perform outside work cannot Art. 12b I, Commission), obtaining from the first authorization without http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/docs/toclOO_ available (as en.pdf case in Clerk Court’s 13, 2012, visited Jan. file). attorneys’ agency law establishes Hornbook departure commence- Sullivan & Cromwell their from representing prevented employment that them from ment of relationship agency 1 Re- him. See ended their (hereinafter (1957) (Second) § Agency Re- statement (Second)) (“[T]he authority agent terminates of an statement acquires knowledge principal, adverse he without of the if, *16 guilty breach of of a serious or if he is otherwise interests (“[Tjhe loyalty principal.”); §394, Comment a id., to the by loyalty] principal agent duty [of his a breach of commits undertaking acting in which has substantial for another an duty tendency disregard his him his to serve to cause mind.”). only principal’s purposes principal in with attorneys Ala- did not observe the two Furthermore, permis- requiring the trial court’s them to seek bama’s Rule 6.2, Ala. Proc. Comment. to withdraw. See Rule Crim. sion (“[I]t (Second) § b is ordi- Comment 111, 1 Restatement Cf. agent narily principal an to do that a does not intend inferred act.”). By failing permission illegal withdraw, to seek Ingen-Housz the court’s records Munanka and allowed attorneys convey they represented Maples. As listed they, Maples, court record, would be the addressees requires Ala. to furnish. orders law the clerk entry any (“Upon ain Rule 34.5 the order Crim. Proc. proceeding response . . . the motion, made in to a criminal delay, parties copy clerk shall, without all undue furnish means.”) appropriate thereof ormail other and 34.4 (“[W]here represented by defendant is counsel, service record.”). attorney upon shall be made Although acknowledging Ingen-Housz that Munanka and agency relationship Maples upon severed their their departure argues Cromwell, that, from Sullivan & the State nonetheless, not abandoned. Other Maples’ to serve as firm, asserts, State continued Regarding counsel. this we that the assertion, note, first, cloudy record is on the role other Sullivan & Cromwell attor- neys played. In an trial affidavit submitted to the Alabama Maples’ support request in that the its court reissue supra, partner Rule 32 De Leeuw order, 277, see Marc [Maples’] stated that he had been “involved in case since the App. summer of to Pet. Cert. 257a. After the 2001.” for initially in trial court denied the State’s motion to dismiss court, December De Leeuw informed the Sullivan & “lawyers working Maples pre- for Cromwell on this case Mr. pared hearing.” anticipated] evidentiary [an Id., at 258a. attorney, Duffy, stated, Another Sullivan & Felice Cromwell Sep- court in an affidavit submitted to the Alabama trial [Maples’] “ha[d] on since tember that she worked case De nor October 231. But neither Leeuw 14, 2002.” “wor[k] Duffy “involve[ment]” on what their or described [Maples’] case” entailed. And neither named (both lawyers, Ingen-Housz Munanka and of them other than 2001), engaged still with December Sullivan & Cromwell hearing. preparation expected Nor did De Leeuw identify any, lawyers performed specific work, if other depar- Ingen-Housz’s Munanka’s and case between *17 receipt telephone call from Ma- tures and firm’s of the ples’ mother.8
8 surprising, given not Sulli perhaps of the record is unclear state amici default. As representation van after the & Cromwell’s for the firm once conflict of arose Maples explain, significant for a interest how- activity Cromwell, & at Sullivan record on The slim precisely more to determine remand ever, does not warrant lawyers and by than Munanka other firm the work done are not our decision Ingen-Housz. to the facts essential For & Crom- default, the Sullivan the time of the in doubt. At Duffy, Leeuw, attorneys later came forward —De who well practice law Kathy admitted to Brewer—had not been Maples’ appearances on their had not entered Alabama, nothing the Alabama to inform done behalf, and had Ingen- they for Munanka wished to substitute that legal attorneys author- had none of these Thus, Housz. expired. appeal ity Maples’ before his time to act on behalf (The (Second) acquire § “failure 1Cf. Restatement illegal do an agent qualification which it is without act.”).9 authority agent’s authorized act... terminates et al. as Professors Legal for Ethics passed. crucial deadline Brief in avoid default, interest the firm’s Following the Amici Curiae 23-27. strongest Maples’ ing damage reputation odds its own him, had he e., abandoned therefore argument attorneys had —i. did not & Cromwell Yet Sullivan cause to be relieved from the default. made Ma attorney, have to a who could Maples’ representation cede new Instead, the Appeals. Court of argument plain to the ples’ abandonment the Elev argument in briefing and oral represented Maples through firm mishap Circuit, responsibility for attempted to cast they enth where & Cromwell’s Given Sullivan on the clerk of the Alabama trial court. and submit interest, petition, prepared federal habeas conflict the de prior to firm, Maples, persuasive ted not evidence that is firm,” post, at fault, represented by see as “the ever “viewed himself” record, attorneys Munanka J., by his dissenting), rather than (Scalia, Ingen-Housz. attorneys no had & argues that the Sullivan Cromwell The dissent him, sim longer represent wanted them to “to no basis infer that Post, yet Alabama court.” they qualified had not before the ply because attorneys true, What the may While it is irrelevant. at 297. them to file a wanted Maples would have could have inferred is that in Ala practice prior to their admission to notice of on his behalf ibid, (internal quotation marks bama, “illegal,” doing so would be (Second) omitted). b, quoted §111, Comment 1 Restatement also then, the appeal, filing a notice of supra, purpose at 284. For the critical Maples. authority to act & other Sullivan Cromwell *18 they What did or did not do in their New York offices is point. preserv- therefore beside the At the time critical to ing Maples’ appeal, they, to an access like Munanka and Ingen-Housz, Maples’ agents. were not authorized
Maples’ only other local record, Butler, counsel also begin left him abandoned. Indeed, Butler did not even represent Maples. Ingen- Butler informed Munanka and only Housz that pur- he serve would as local counsel for the pose enabling attorneys appear pro the two out-of-state Supra, Lacking necessary hac vice. at 274. “resources, experience,” [and] available time Butler told the two Sulli- lawyers, van & Cromwell he would not “deal with substantive in participation issues the case.” Ibid. That the minimal he undertook was inconsistent with Alabama law, VII, see Rule quoted supra, absurdity holding at 274, underscores the signed barred because Butler on as local counsel. recognizing
In that Butler had no role in the case other Ingen-Housz pro appear than to allow Munanka and hac rely solely vice, we need not De Butler’s and Leeuw’s App. statements to that effect. to Pet. for Cert. 255a-258a. “operat[e] Other factors confirm that Butler did not as [Maples’] agent any meaningful in of that Hol- sense word.” concurring part land, 560 S., J., U. at 659 and con- (Alito, curring judgment). The first is Butler’s own conduct. Upon receiving copy of the trial Rule 32 But- order, court’s ler did not firm contact Sullivan & Cromwell to ensure that lawyers taking appropriate Although were Butler action. Ingen-Housz had reason to believe that Munanka and copy (indicating order, received a of the court’s see Ingen-Housz order), that Munanka and were CC’d on the place phone Butler’s failure New York even call to the repre- any genuinely firm substantiates his disclaimer of sentative in the case. role
Notably, did not actual State treat Butler as representative. Attorney Hayden ad- Assistant General directly informing Maples default of the
dressed letter supra, Hayden prison. sent no 277. notify, any copy to, he of the nor did otherwise *19 Lawyers Maples. in Alabama listed as counsel of record for communicating obligation di- to refrain from have ethical by represented rectly party opposing known to be with an (2003); 4.2 Ala. Rule of Professional Conduct counsel. See (requiring all Proc. that the service of Ala. Rule Crim. 34.4 record”)- attorney upon In writ- made documents “be directly only notwithstanding Maples, ing this ethical Attorney Hayden obligation, must have General Assistant Maples longer represented counsel, believed that was no local.10 out-of-state or only reading: no sum,
In the record At time admits one serving Maples’ as before the missed was Butler deadline meaningful agent any 560 Holland, “in of that word.” sense J.). (opinion S., U. at 659 Alito, 3 attorney only functioning any Not was without left very listing Ingen-Housz, and record, of Munanka, right per representatives as that he Butler meant sonally supra, He in fact to receive See at 284-285. notice. any warning he fend received none or had better other attorney for himself. Had counsel of record or State’s note, well, response It bears as the State served its only petition Rule 32 New York on Sullivan & Cromwell’s Munanka address, may not obligated on Butler. 26. While the State record, more one York to serve than its selection of New rather start, that, local than counsel is some from the State indication Conforming the cognizant of limited Butler would serve. State’s role 2006, Supreme practice, Rule to common the Alabama Court amended provision re appearances out-of-state counsel to eliminate the quirement representing associate local counsel that such when indigent pro postconviction proceedings. criminal defendants bono supra, n. 3. plight appeal
informed of his before the time to ran he out, could have filed a notice of himself11 or en attorneys.12 listed the aid newof volunteer Given no reason to, suspect repre willing that he lacked able counsel Maples surely complying sent him, was blocked from the State’s rule.
C prejudice requirement,” “The cause and said, we have regard finality comity “shows due for States’ interests ensuring [remains] while that ‘fundamental the cen- fairness corpus.’” tral concern of writ of habeas Dretke v. (2004) Haley, (quoting 541 U. 386, S. v. Strickland Wash- (1984)). ington, 466 S. In U. the unusual circum- *20 agency principles stances of this of law fundamen- case, point tal fairness to the same conclusion: There was indeed Maples’ procedural Through cause to excuse default. Maples any fault own, of his lacked the assistance of author- attorney during days noticing ized 42 Alabama the allows for appeal postconviction a from trial court’s denial of relief. just reality, suspect As observed, he had no reason to that, pro Maples he had been reduced to se status. was disarmed by extraordinary beyond quite circumstances his control. ample He has shown the cause, hold, we to excuse trapped default into which he when of record was counsel warning. him abandoned a word of without 11The notice simple specify only: party document. It need the tak is ing from, appeal, judgment appealed the the order and the name of the or 3(c) (2000). App. to which is taken. Ala. Rule Proc. 12 pro se grants appeals prisoners proceeding out-of-time timely copies who were not served with of court orders. v. See curiam) Allen, (CA11 2009) 879, 888, (per (citing n. 6 F. 3d (Ala. Miles, parte parte Robinson, Ex Ex 2002), 841 So. 2d curiam)). (Ala. 2003) (per 1250,1251-1252 Though So. 2d Crim. record, was, fact, pro se petitioner he without was not a on the authorized counsel. I I I timely
Having failure to file the found no cause excuse and the appeal in state the District Court court, notice of question prejudice. the of Eleventh Circuit did reach open supra, for remains therefore, That issue, at 279. decision remand.
[*] [*] [*] Ap- judgment of the Court stated, For the reasons the peals case and the reversed, Eleventh Circuit is proceedings this is remanded for further consistent opinion. so ordered.
It is Alito, Justice concurring. peti- join opinion of
I Unbeknownst Court. effectively legal representation deprived tioner, he eight than unfortu- due to the combined effect fewer of no (1) departure the two nate their law firm of events: from young lawyers appeared state who counsel of record as (2) postconviction proceeding; acceptance by these two attorneys employment precluded con- new them from (3) tinuing notify represent petitioner him; their failure (4) their as his situation; new failure to withdraw their (5) apparent firm that record; counsel of failure of the they petitioner’s left these to monitor case when status (6) denying departed; when notice of the decision petitioner’s request postconviction re- relief was state *21 offices, ceived of the mailroom that firm’s the failure firm’s important to route that communication to either another departed attorneys’ or to new ad- member of the firm the (7) any dresses; failure of to action the clerk’s office take envelope containing when the un- that notice came back (8) opened; very conception of the local limited counsel’s obligated petitioner’s representa- play role that he was to unique peti- agree tion. I circumstances, Under these attorneys effectively tioner’s that this him and abandoned abandonment was a that is “cause” sufficient overcome petitioner’s procedural default. petitioner’s
In an client, effort to obtain relief for his coun- in the case now sel before us cast blame for what occurred system legal providing representation on Alabama’s for capital proceedings. at and in defendants trial state collateral may See Brief for Petitioner But whatever 3-6. said system, sys- about Alabama’s I do think that Alabama’s anything petitioner’s tem had much if to do with misfortune. quality petitioner’s obviously representation at trial played filing in the for role failure meet deadline postconvic- his notice of from the of his state denial petition. any important tion I Nor do see connection be- happened system tween what in this case and Alabama’s for providing representation prisoners are who sentenced petition death and who towish the state courts for collateral attorneys States, relief. Unlike other Alabama relies on represent prisoners pro who volunteer to bono, these and we large, are told that most of work out- these volunteers Id., of-state firms. at 4. Petitioner’s brief states that the system bearing giving Alabama “a direct events rise issue,” id., ... default at but a similar combination of untoward could have occurred events attorneys petitioner represented if had been Alabama appointed by paid who state were the court and for with lawyers represented petitioner pro funds. The firm whose country’s expensive, prestigious bono is one of most majority and I have of criminal little doubt that the vast they lottery they if think had won the defendants would attorneys represented by given opportunity were to be (stating that it “seemed as id., from such a firm. at 9 lottery though two had won the when agreed repre- working firm . . New York law . elite bono”). Maples pro sent predictable consequence of here not a
What occurred perfect system storm of misfor- but a veritable *22 unlikely without no- that, of tune, a most combination events representation. effectively legal deprived petitioner of tice, petitioner’s unique agree I that circumstances, these Under procedural default is overcome. joins, Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas
Justice dissenting. Cory Appeals that of held
The Alabama Court Criminal postconviction Maples’ appeal the denial of state from his ap- petition a notice was barred because he not filed peal that concludes within the allotted time. The Court now procedural his default has cause for established attorneys. I Because cannot reason abandonment agree alternative conclusion, that and because the judgment. argument I affirm better, fares no would I A procedural reflects, furthers, Our default doctrine principle that in should be state criminal trials errors recognized, long remedied in state As we have fed- court. prisoners significant imposes eral for state habeas review only practical undermining in- on the States, costs their Engle finality judgments, in the their see terest criminal (1982), primacy v. Isaac, 456 U. S. 126-127 also the but rights adjudicating of de- of their courts the constitutional prosecuted have law, id., fendants under state at 128. We “[tjhese recognized high particularly further costs are prisoner, pre- through default, ... when a state adjudication vents his constitutional state court.” claims (1991). Thompson, In v. Coleman 501 U. S. 722, prisoner “deprived of an situation, has state courts opportunity id., instance,” address those claims the first thereby leaving “a chance to state courts without Engle, intrusion,” mend their own fences and avoid federal permitting S., at 129. For that reason, U. and because *23 “undercu[t] review federal-court of defaulted claims would ability procedural the State’s to enforce rules,” ibid., its we adequate have held that when a state court has relied on an independent procedural ground denying pris- state a prisoner ordinarily may oner’s the claims, not obtain federal habeas Coleman, relief. 501 U. atS., 729-730. prohibition
To be the sure, of federal-court review de- petitioner’s faulted is not A claims absolute. default habeas peti- in state will not bar federal if “the habeas review prejudice,” tioner id., demonstrates cause and actual at constituting “something peti- 748—“cause” external the to something fairly that tioner, him,” cannot to attributed impeded compliance with the rule, State’s (or general attorney’s id., at matter, 753. As a mistakes omissions) attorney do not the meet standard the “because petitioner’s agent acting, failing is the when to in fur- or act, litigation, petitioner therance of the and the must ‘bear the ” Ibid, attorney (quoting Murray risk of error.’ v. Carrier, (1986)). 477 U. S. 488 See also Link 478, Co., v. Wabash R. (1962). 370 U. S. and n. 10 626, 633-634, attorney’s stage proceed- When an error occurs at a the ings right at which the a ef- defendant has constitutional may counsel, fective assistance that error constitute cause resulting procedural to excuse a default. A State’s failure duty attorney, provide in its an effective as measured Washington, the standard set forth in Strickland v. 466 U. S. (1984), attorney’s chargeable the makes error the Murray, State, and hence external to the defense. See supra, right at But when the client 488. has no to counsel— postconviction setting, Pennsylvania as is the case in the see (1987) Finley, v. 551, 481 U. S. client bears the risk —the representa- of all errors made course of regardless egregiousness tion, of the of the mistake. Cole- (“[I]t supra, gravity attorney’s man, is not of the peti- it error that but that violation matters, constitutes a seen as right must be that the error counsel, so tioner’s factor”). an external
B just light principles correct the Court is out, In set petitioner’s proce- ante, at habeas conclude, may to aban- when it is attributable dural default be excused attorney. ration- case, such Coleman’s In donment his attorney’s attributing to acting and omissions ale for acts attorney has down; for once the ceased client breaks agency agent, principles law,” as the client’s “well-settled longer support charging client 501 U. S., may lawyer’s attorney’s there- mistakes. The mistakes *24 ap- in ibid., be an and factor,” fore understood as “external excusing prisoner’s propriate may justify the circumstances procedural default. agree ante,
I conclusion, with the likewise Court’s Maples’ Mu- record, two of Jaasi that out-of-state Ingen-Housz, Maples the nanka Clara and abandoned denying his time the Alabama trial its order court entered petition postconviction observes, relief. As the Court seeking informing Maples ante, 283-284, without or leave Maples’ case, from the Alabama trial from court withdraw Ingen-Housz both Munanka and left & Cromwell’s Sullivan employ accepted positions precluded from and new that them represent Maples. continuing conduct amounted This Maples’ agents, of their 1 Restate- renunciation roles as see (Second) (1957) (herein- Agency §119, ment b Comment authority 2d), after Restatement and thus terminated their § Maples’ id., to act on Munanka’s behalf, result, 118. As Ingen-Housz’s response to the take failure to action Maples. imputed trial court’s order should not be unjustified leap, It is that to conclude however, unrepresented during was left between relevant window postconviction peti the Alabama trial court’s dismissal expiration 42-day period filing a notice tion Appellate established Alabama Rule of Procedure 4(a)(1) (2009). allegations: Maples’ Start with own In his petition, Maples alleged amended federal habeas that, at the sought postconviction time he relief in Alabama trial court, represented by he “was Sullivan & Cromwell of New York, Although petition New York.” 256. went on to identify Ingen-Housz Munanka and as “the two Sullivan law yers handling matter,” id., at 257, its that statement Ma ples “represented” by strongly suggests the firm itself having viewed himself as retained the services perfectly understanding. of the firm as a whole, a natural lawyer practices “When a client retains a who awith firm, presumption lawyer is that both the and the firm have (Third) been retained.” 1 Restatement the Law Govern (1998). ing Lawyers p. Admittedly, §31, Comment/, attempt connection with the before the Alabama trial court appeal, partner to extend the time for & Sullivan Cromwell stating Marc De Leeuw submitted an affidavit that the firm’s lawyers pro “handle bono cases on an individual basis” and lawyers appeared Maples’ that the who had ease had fol practice, “attempting] lowed that not to use firm name correspondence papers.” App. or court Pet. for Cert. petition pleading 257a. But habeas is the that initi litigation; surely allegations ated the current it given priority representations contained should over *25 prior made to courts.* says in allegations Maples’ petition
*The Court that the own habeas are ante, evidence,” “persuasive 286, 8, lawyers not Maples’ n. because at they pre- Sullivan & Cromwell under labored a conflict interest when pared point, Maples’ the This the effect of document. is curious since implicate missing statement was a firm in the Sullivan & Cromwell as filing have the & deadline. conflict would induced Sullivan Cromwell (at lawyers sure, exonerate the firm. developed To later as the case stage yet litigating this had not been conceived as the strat- abandonment egy), say lawyers. he Maples’ it would have been in interest had Maples the petition’s But issue statement raises not whether was is attorney-client any Maples relation- if had no case, even In Ingen- and ship firm, Munanka the Sullivan & Cromwell with lawyers only surely Sullivan & Cromwell were Housz Maples De Leeuw’s represented basis. an individual on who [Ma- acknowledged involved he had “been that affidavit year roughly a ples’] 2001,” ibid., the summer case since Cromwell, Ingen-Housz left Sullivan & and Munanka before Ingen-Housz and “Ms. stated after and it further denying the court’s initial order learned of Mr. Munanka” petition Maples’ postconviction to dismiss motion the State’s working lawyers for this case “the 2001, in December Maples evidentiary hearing” prepared Mr. & requested, Moreover, when Sullivan id., at 258a. had appear pro Duffy filed motion Felice Cromwell in connection trial court vice before the Alabama hac attempt that she deadline, she stated to extend [Maples’] 231, 2002,” case since October “worked on place. took default months before affi- According Leeuw’s ante, De Court, to the see how he was “involved” not make clear davit does Ingen- lawyers and other than Munanka or whether case anticipated prepared among who for the those Housz were Duffy’s evidentiary hearing; make clear and motion does not “wor[k]” little doubt entailed. But there is her what only Ingen-Housz who not the were Munanka preparations; “in- engaged and that De Leeuw in the (what Duffy lawyers “worked” as volved” on?). they distinc- have taken De Leeuw’s role could other Ingen-Housz “the and Mr. Munanka” between “Ms. tion Maples” working have lawyers case for Mr. would on this beyond category not extend if the latter did been senseless attorneys. the two named true. And if Sulli- whether the statement was cleverly represented; it is any bearing preparing petition has involvement van & Cromwell’s that, the truth.
upon only it reinforces *26 every In sum, there is indication that when trial court dismissing Maples’ postconviction entered petition its order May represented continued to be a team attorneys in Sullivan & Cromwell’sNew York office. The attorneys Court nonetheless insists that the actions of these they prac- are irrelevant because had not been to admitted appearances tice law in Alabama, had not entered in the sought Alabama trial court, had not to substitute for Ingen-Housz. Munanka and ante, at 286-287.' The explain why Court not, does however, these facts establish attorneys Maples’ agents purpose were not for the attending aspects require to those of the case that did not appearance certainly keeping would include —which filing track quo- of orders issued and deadlines. Court’s Agency, tation from the Restatement of at ante, that the acquire qualification by agent “failure to a without which illegal agent’s it is to ando authorized act... terminates the authority § to act,” 2d, 111, Restatement 290, omits the crucial condition contained end “if section: agent] [the principal, thereafter he should that the infer if he knew the facts, would not consent to the further exercise authority.” of the There nowas basis whatever for these attorneys longer rep- to infer that wanted them to simply they yet qualified resent him, because had before Though “illegal” the it court. would have been being these file a notice of without au- practice nothing prevented thorized in Alabama, them seeking practice, from first to secure admission as Mu- filing Ingen-Housz initially nanka done, and then appeal. notice huge gap jurisprudence
It would create our Colemnn disregard all errors committed before admission greater gap disregard to the court; relevant and an even (as suggests) the Court all errors committed before the at- torney appearance. even if Moreover, enters an these attor- neys regarded Maples’ agents purposes cannot as *27 they litigation, his at least
conducting were the Alabama impending dead- purposes advising agents of the him who were fault of counsel line. unawareness was His happened charged agents, him. What and must be ignorance “[attorney simply or inadvertence” here is procedural de- a cause to excuse not furnish sort that does U. at 753. Coleman, S., fault. Maples’ leaving question “unad-
But even aside fully a had Cromwell, & at Sullivan mitted” appearance, attorney, in the who an had entered admitted support for person Butler. There is counsel, of local John begin to not even Butler “did the Court’s conclusion that represent Maples.” affidavit Butler True, the at 287. Ante, seeking proceeding trial court in the filed with the Alabama “no he had substantive of the deadline extension stated “agreed to serve with that he case, involvement” a only.” But App. 255a. Pet. for Cert. as local counsel case, in a whether involvement” disclaimer of “substantive obligations, lawyer’s ante, at see it ethical or not violates a any agency equivalent all. A role at to a 287, is denial of surely attorney’s would local involvement “nonsubstantive” keeping court orders track of local include, minimum, at a advising impending deadlines. “substantive” counsel he explanation when act did Butler’s for his failure to Nor copy sound in abandon- a of the trial court’s order received ignored say, that he instance, ment. Butler did not his client. order because he did not consider “past practice” of the and the content Instead, based on lawyers & at Sullivan order, Butler “assumed” that copy. Pet. for Cert. 256a. Cromwell would receive a badly gets wrong that “But- it states The Court this when phone place firm” call New York failure even to to the ler’s repre- any genuinely Butler’s “disclaimer of demonstrates very By equating attor- Ante, sentative role.” 287. ney Maples’procedural default error that contributed agency relationship, the Court ensures the absence of today’s opinion template will serve as a for future habeas petitioners seeking holding to evade Coleman’s that ineffec- postconviction tiveness of counsel will not furnish cause to excuse default. See 501 S.,U. at 752-754. allege, The trick will be to not that counsel was ineffective, but rather that counsel’s ineffectiveness demonstrates that genuinely representative agent. precedent he was not a No easily games, should be so circumvented word but damage particularly precedent is acute when the affected is firmly “grounded comity so in concerns of and federalism.” *28 Id., at 730. last-gasp attempt justify
The Court’s to its conclusion that agent Maples’ point prosecutor Butler was not is to a out that directly, Maples informing a sent letter to him of the de- appeal. faulted See at ante, 287-288. Court reasons prosecutor thought that the must have that had been by lawyers, rep- abandoned his since to communicate with a party resented would have been a of ethical violation stand- supposition Ibid. ards. But even if correct, this is it is proves. hard to understand what it What matters, all, after prosecutor thought Maples not is whether the had been aban- Maples really but doned, whether was abandoned. And as learning out, it turns conduct Butler’s after about the default any immediately, further belies such contention. Almost began lawyers cooperate Butler to Sulli- filing papers Maples” van & Cromwell, as “Counsel for Mr. Cory Maples” multiple or “Local in Counsel Petitioner attempt rectify courts in an to mistake. See representational 230, 236, 238. Had Butler reassumed his having Hardly. duties after abandoned them? There nois proper interruptus. for a conclusion basis of abandonment
1—1 !—I Maples argues m the alternative that default should his process right excused to due was violated when because his action the trial-court clerk failed to take after Munanka’s and copies Ingen-Housz’s were re- order of the court’s dismissal According Maples, in our decision turned undeliverable. (2006), that the Flowers, Jones v. 547 U. S. establishes duty a do more. clerk had tax of a sale that, when a notice
We held Jones mailed reason- a must take additional unclaimed, is returned State steps provide property attempt to the able notice selling property. It id., 234. is owner before holding any questionable to the relevance whether has here, circumstances which involved the institution proceedings against unwitting litigant, the is- but rather pending case instituted of an order a that was suance I due Indeed, himself. think it whether doubtful litigant any process entitles court’s order in notice of a reject pending certainly case. The Federal no- Rules requirement. is Rule of tion that notice an absolute Federal 77(d)(2)provides “[l]ack of notice Civil Procedure entry judgment] [of an the time for order or does not affect party appeal or relieve—or authorize the to relieve—a except failing to as al- allowed, within the time (4)(a).” Appellate And lowed Federal Rule of Procedure 4(a)(6) although Appellate Federal turn Rule of Procedure *29 reopened provides filing that time for can be days litigant a notice, when did not receive it establishes judgment limit after or order is as the outer entered by reopen a must Rule which motion be filed. See 4(a)(6)(B). grapple question, however,
There is need to with this copy Butler a of trial court’s order. because received system representative litigation, party “Under our ‘each ... is considered to of which facts, have “notice all notice attorney.”’” Depart- charged [his] upon can be Irwin v. (1990) (quoting ment Veterans 498 U. S. Affairs, 634). S.,U. notice was therefore Link, 370 to Butler constitutionally sufficient.
* * * suspects today’s large One that decision is motivated part by an understandable sense of frustration with the Maples’ procedural State’s refusal to waive in- default may explain terest of fairness. well Indeed, that frustration proce- lengthy general the Court’s indictment of Alabama’s representation capital providing dures for defendants, portion opinion ante, 271-273, a that of the Court’s is so analysis disconnected from the rest of its as to other- inexplicable. wise justifies excusing Maples’
But if the interest of our fairness procedural default it so a here, does whenever defendant’s procedural attorney. simply default is caused That is not the law—and if are be, cannot the States to have an or- derly system litigation criminal conducted counsel. precedents rights Our on its en- allow State to stand petitioner’s procedural force a habeas default even when application counsel is to blame. Because faithful of those precedents leads to the conclusion not dem- has default; onstrated cause to excuse his because reasoning by justifies opposite which the Court con- principle de- clusion future evisceration of the invites attorneys; responsible fendants are for the mistakes their respectfully I dissent.