## Facts

- Thaddeus Michael Lockhart, a Texas prisoner, was convicted in state court of aggravated robbery arising from a street robbery in Dallas on April 2, 1976.
- The victim, James Hall, reported being robbed at knifepoint after leaving a neighborhood café and gave police a description of the assailant’s clothing and build.
- Police located Lockhart about a block away wearing clothing matching the description; Hall identified Lockhart at the scene as the robber.
- Police recovered a knife from Lockhart that Hall identified as the weapon used; police also found cash on Lockhart.
- A wallet later introduced by the State as Hall’s wallet became a focal point because officers could not clearly recall recovering it at the moment of arrest, and booking inventory procedures were referenced to connect seized property to Lockhart.
- Lockhart claimed trial counsel inadequately challenged identification evidence and the wallet’s chain of custody and failed to pursue additional investigative and evidentiary steps.
- On direct appeal, appointed counsel filed an affidavit stating the appeal lacked merit and requested to withdraw rather than filing a substantive merits brief.
- After unsuccessful state post-conviction proceedings, Lockhart filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal; the district court denied relief, and Lockhart appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Lockhart’s trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate, object to, or challenge the State’s evidence, including the wallet’s chain of custody and related proof.
2. Whether Lockhart’s appellate counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by filing a no-merit affidavit and seeking withdrawal, and by failing to present allegedly nonfrivolous issues on direct appeal.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief.
- The court held Lockhart failed to satisfy Strickland’s deficiency and prejudice requirements as to trial counsel.
- The court held Lockhart also failed to establish ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, including any showing that different appellate briefing would likely have produced a different result.

## Legal Principles

- Ineffective assistance claims are governed by Strickland v. Washington’s two-part test: (1) objectively deficient performance and (2) a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the deficiency.
- Review of attorney performance is highly deferential; strategic and evidentiary judgments generally do not establish constitutional deficiency without a showing that counsel’s choices were outside the range of reasonable professional assistance.
- For appellate representation, counsel is not required to raise every possible issue; a petitioner must still prove objectively unreasonable professional judgment and prejudice to the appeal.
- In federal habeas review, asserted trial errors tied to counsel’s conduct require a showing that the alleged failures likely affected the verdict or appellate disposition, not merely that alternative tactics were available.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that Lockhart did not prove constitutionally ineffective assistance at trial or on appeal because he failed to show both unreasonable attorney performance and a reasonable probability that the verdict or appellate outcome would have changed, and it therefore affirmed denial of § 2254 relief.


Lockhart v. McCotter, 782 F.2d 1275 (5th Cir. 1986)