In the case of Jose M. Lozada v. George Deeds, Warden (1990), the petitioner, Jose M. Lozada, was a prisoner who sought federal habeas corpus relief from his conviction for first-degree murder and robbery in Nevada state court on grounds that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal due to his attorney's failure to object to certain evidence and instructions given by the judge during trial proceedings. The District Court dismissed his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing or appointing counsel for him as it found no merit in any of his claims after reviewing the record before it. Lozada appealed this decision arguing that he had a constitutional right under 28 U.S.C §2254(d) which requires federal courts to hold an evidentiary hearing if there is dispute over facts related to claim unless they are adequately developed in state court records; however, Supreme Court held that such requirement does not apply when district court determines from record itself whether factual disputes exist or not thus affirming lower court’s judgement dismissing Lozada’s petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Jose M. Lozada v. George Deeds, Warden argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect because it did not properly consider whether or not Lozada had received effective assistance of counsel during his trial and appeal process. The dissent believed that there were significant issues with how Lozada's defense attorney handled his case, including a failure to object to certain evidence and instructions given by the judge at trial which could have potentially influenced the jury's verdict against him. Furthermore, they felt that these errors were compounded by ineffective representation on appeal when these issues weren't raised as grounds for reversal. Therefore, according to this view, since both stages of proceedings suffered from deficient performance by counsel resulting in prejudice towards defendant’s rights under Sixth Amendment guaranteeing right to effective assistance of counsel; hence he should be granted relief.