Carlos Trevino, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
The Court held that, because Texas procedures did not afford a meaningful opportunity to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal, such claims first raised in a federal habeas petition were not barred by procedural default.· AI-written
569 U.S. 413 · No. 11-10189 · 2012 term · Roberts Court
Decided May 28, 2013 · argued Feb 25, 2013
Civil rights · Indigents: inadequate representation by counsel
Majority opinion: Stephen Breyer
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Vacated and remanded. Carlos Trevino, Petitioner won.
What this ruling means
Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.
Carlos Trevino, Petitioner was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Trevino v. Thaler, 569 US 413, was a 2013 United States Supreme Court decision that applied the narrow exception to Coleman v. Thompson's rule recognized by Martinez v. Ryan to excuse ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims that were procedurally defaulted under Texas state law. Martinez recognized a right to counsel in an initial-review collateral proceeding where state law did not allow ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims to be raised until post-conviction proceedings because there is no constitutional right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings. Even though Texas law allowed IAC claims to be raised on direct appeal the Court found that the state's procedures did not afford a "meaningful opportunity" to do so and held that the IAC claims raised for the first time in a federal habeas petition were not barred by the procedural default.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2012 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Stephen BreyerWrote the majority opinion
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
John RobertsWrote a dissent
Antonin ScaliaWrote a dissent
Samuel AlitoJoined a dissent
Clarence ThomasJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Carlos Trevino, PetitionerGovernmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact (Texas)
- Respondent
- Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions DivisionPerson convicted of crime
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 28 U.S.C. § 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)
- Kind of law
- Federal Statute
- Decided by
- Interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- May 28, 2013DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: vacated and remanded. Carlos Trevino, Petitioner won.
- Feb 25, 2013ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit: unusual disposition.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Texas Western U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
14 other argued cases since 1946 on indigents: inadequate representation by counsel, newest first.
- Weaver v. Massachusetts137 S. Ct. 1899Jun 22, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1899Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Missouri, Petitioner v. Galin E. Frye566 U.S. 134Mar 21, 2012 · 566 U.S. 134Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Blaine Lafler, Petitioner v. Anthony Cooper566 U.S. 156Mar 21, 2012 · 566 U.S. 156Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Luis Mariano Martinez, Petitioner v. Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections566 U.S. 1Mar 20, 2012 · 566 U.S. 1Civil rights7–27–2 band
- James Walker, Warden, et al., Petitioners v. Charles W. Martin562 U.S. 307Feb 23, 2011 · 562 U.S. 307Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Petitioner v. Randy Joseph Moore562 U.S. 115Jan 19, 2011 · 562 U.S. 115Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
- Albert Holland v. Florida560 U.S. 631Jun 14, 2010 · 560 U.S. 631Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Michael A. Knowles, Warden v. Alexandre Mirzayance556 U.S. 111Mar 24, 2009 · 556 U.S. 111Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Penson, Steven A. v. Ohio488 U.S. 75Nov 29, 1988 · 488 U.S. 75Civil rights8–18–1 band
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1486 U.S. 429Jun 6, 1988 · 486 U.S. 429Civil rights5–36–3 band
- Strickland, Superintendent, Florida State Prison, et al. v. WashingtonLandmark · Other rights regarding counsel466 U.S. 668May 14, 1984 · 466 U.S. 668Civil rightsLandmark · Other rights regarding counsel8–18–1 band
- Wood et al. v. Georgia450 U.S. 261Mar 4, 1981 · 450 U.S. 261Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Holloway et al. v. Arkansas435 U.S. 475Apr 3, 1978 · 435 U.S. 475Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Johnson v. Avery, Commissioner of Correction, et al.393 U.S. 483Feb 24, 1969 · 393 U.S. 483Civil rights7–27–2 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.