In the case of Wilburn Dobbs v. Walter D. Zant, Warden in 1992, the United States Supreme Court was asked to review a decision made by lower courts regarding Dobbs' death sentence for murder conviction in Georgia state court. The main issue at hand was whether or not Dobbs had received ineffective assistance from his counsel during sentencing phase of his trial due to failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence about his background and character. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear this appeal without providing an explanation for its refusal (as is common practice). This meant that the decisions of lower courts stood - they had determined that while Dobbs’ legal representation may have been deficient, it did not prejudice him enough to affect outcome of his sentencing hearing; hence he wasn't entitled for relief under Strickland v Washington standard which requires showing both deficient performance by counsel and resulting prejudice.

In the dissenting opinion for Wilburn Dobbs v. Walter D. Zant, Warden, Justice Blackmun expressed concern over the majority's decision to deny Dobbs' habeas corpus petition without considering his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing. He argued that this case was a clear example of how procedural barriers can prevent courts from addressing substantial claims about constitutional rights violations in capital cases. The justice believed that Dobbs’ attorneys failed to present significant mitigating evidence at his trial which could have potentially spared him the death penalty and thus constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v Washington standards. Furthermore, he criticized Georgia’s state court for not conducting an evidentiary hearing on this issue and felt it was crucial for federal courts to step in when state courts fail to provide adequate post-conviction review processes.