Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that, to demonstrate that counsel was ineffective at a state, non-capital, discretionary sentencing proceeding, the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, his sentence would have been 'significantly less harsh'

QUESTION PRESENTED A federal habeas petitioner who alleges that trial counsel was ineffective at a capital sentencing proceeding must show “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Jd. The Fifth Circuit has held that a petitioner who alleges that counsel was ineffective at a state, non-capital, discretionary sentencing proceeding must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, his sentence would have been “significantly less harsh.” This Court rejected the “significantly less harsh” standard, as applied to a federal sentence, and held that the imposition of any additional jail time as a result of counsel’s errors is sufficient to demonstrate prejudice. Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198, 203 (2001). The Fifth Circuit, while acknowledging that Glover abrogated this standard as applied to a federal sentence, continues to apply it to a state, non-capital, discretionary sentence. It held that petitioner failed to show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, his state sentence would have been “significantly less harsh,” and it affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief. The question presented is: Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that, to demonstrate that counsel was ineffective at a state, non-capital, discretionary ii QUESTION PRESENTED—Continued sentencing proceeding, the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, his sentence would have been “significantly less harsh.” iii RELATED CASES e §=6©State v. Hill, No. 1103320, 337th District Court of Harris County, Texas. Judgment entered January 15, 2008. e §6Hill v. State, No. 14-08-00062-CR, Fourteenth Court of Appeals of Texas. Judgment entered July 21, 2009. e = Hill v. State, No. PD-1217-09, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Judgment entered January 13, 2010. e =6 Ex parte Hill, No. 1103320-A, 337th District Court of Harris County, Texas. Judgment entered September 17, 2014. e =©6Ex parte Hill, No. WR-82,270-01, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Judgment entered March 25, 2015. e ~=6_Hill v. Stephens, No. H-15-0818, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Judgment entered March 31, 2016. e ~=_-Hill v. Davis, No. 16-20268, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judgment entered July 3, 2019.