In the case of A. L. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction v. Bobby Ray Fretwell (1992), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state and against a habeas corpus petitioner who argued that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an error made by the trial court during sentencing proceedings. The defendant had been convicted on charges related to drug trafficking and sentenced under a statute which had been repealed prior to his conviction but after he committed his crime; however, this repeal did not become effective until after he was sentenced. The Supreme Court held that even though there may have been an error at trial due to application of an incorrect law, it does not automatically mean that legal representation is ineffective if they fail to object or raise this issue at trial or appeal stages.

In the dissenting opinion for A. L. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction v. Bobby Ray Fretwell (1992), Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding ineffective counsel claims under Strickland v. Washington (1984). He contended that the Court had previously held that defendants must show both deficient performance by their counsel and prejudice resulting from this deficiency to establish an ineffective assistance claim; however, in this case, they added a new requirement - proving that any errors were not "tactical decisions." Blackmun believed this additional hurdle undermined Strickland’s two-pronged test and made it more difficult for defendants to prove ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view on harmless error analysis as applied in this case because it failed to consider whether or not Fretwell received fair representation during his sentencing hearing.