Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in holding that a state prisoner's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim alleging that counsel failed to raise his incompetence at a guilty-plea proceeding could be resolved without an evidentiary-hearing

QUESTION PRESENTED Defendants have a right to be competent at all stages of criminal proceedings. Because defense counsel has the most exposure to the defendant, the primary responsibility for raising issues of competence rests with counsel. An ineffective assistance of counsel claim arising from counsel’s failure to protect the constitutional right to be competent raises fact-intensive questions regarding what counsel knew (or did not know) about the client’s competence. That information is not in the trial or guilty plea record. Accordingly, this Court generally recognizes that state and federal habeas petitioners are entitled to one meaningful opportunity to develop the relevant facts in an evidentiary hearing either in state or federal court collateral review proceedings. In this context, the question presented is: Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in holding that a state prisoner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim alleging that counsel failed to raise his incompetence at a guilty plea proceeding could be resolved without an evidentiary hearing because the trial record by itself did not establish counsel’s ineffectiveness. ‘ PARTIES The parties to this proceeding are set forth in the caption. ii CONTENTS A. State Court