Ex Parte Lawrence A. Jarrett, Appellant

Summary

The Court affirmed the applicant's habeas petition was premature and remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether appellate counsel notified the applicant of the appellate court's affirmance and advised him of the right to seek discretionary review. The majority held that unresolved factual issues preclude resolution of the ineffective‑assistance claim. Justice McCORMICK dissented, arguing that appellate counsel has no duty to advise on discretionary review and that the majority overextends statutory duties. The dissent would hold that the applicant had no constitutional right to appointed counsel for discretionary review.