Wright v. Van Patten, 128 S.Ct. 743 (2008)

Brief Summary
The United States Supreme Court held that a Wisconsin state court holding that lawyer participation in a plea hearing via speakerphone satisfied the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not an unreasonable application of federal law and that habeas corpus relief therefore had to be denied.

Complete Summary
Defendant Van Patten pleaded no contest to first degree homicide in Wisconsin state court. His counsel was not physically present in the courtroom during the plea hearing but attended via speakerphone. Van Patten, arguing a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, moved for withdrawal of the plea after being sentenced to the maximum 25 years. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that Van Patten had not established the requisite manifest injustice under state law and that he had not established counsel’s deficient or prejudicial performance under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The Wisconsin Supreme Court declined further review, and Van Patten then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus.

The Seventh Circuit held for Van Patten under the exception to Strickland contained in United States. v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984). Unlike the Strickland test, prejudice is presumed when the accused is “denied the presence of counsel at a critical stage of the prosecution.” Cronic, 466 U.S. at 662.

Without ruling on the validity of Van Patten’s Cronic argument, the Supreme Court denied him relief based on the requirements of the habeas corpus statute (28 U.S.C. § 2254). Section 2254(d)(1) bars relief unless the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Noting that the meaning of the “presence” of counsel in Cronic was not “clearly established,” especially in the context of counseling via telephone, the Supreme Court held that the requirements of the statute were not met.

Justice Stevens reluctantly concurred. He pointed to a drafting error in the Cronic opinion, which he had authored. The court had not contemplated the possibility of participation by speakerphone, and he believed that the Cronic opinion should have clarified that the Sixth Amendment required counsel’s physical presence in open court.

Significance of Opinion
This opinion better illuminates the habeas corpus statute than it does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. On direct appeal of a case with the same facts, the Supreme Court may or may not hold that participation by speakerphone does not meet the Cronic presence requirement. Pending Supreme Court clarification, criminal defense counsel would be well advised to attend plea hearings in person.

This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.