In the case of Robert Lacy Parker v. Richard L. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections et al., 1990, Parker was a death row inmate who appealed his sentence on grounds that he received ineffective assistance from his counsel during sentencing. He argued that his attorney failed to present mitigating evidence about his background and mental health which could have potentially led to a lesser sentence than death penalty. The District Court denied relief but issued a certificate of probable cause for appeal; however, the Court of Appeals dismissed it as untimely filed under its rules requiring filing within thirty days after entry judgment order is entered in writing by district court clerk's office. The Supreme Court held that Federal Rule Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1), which provides sixty-day period for filing notice appeal when United States or officer agency thereof party civil case applies also habeas corpus proceedings involving state prisoners because they are "civil" nature even though they challenge criminal judgments.

In the dissenting opinion for Robert Lacy Parker v. Richard L. Dugger, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect due to procedural errors in Parker's original trial and sentencing. The dissent emphasized that during his trial, Parker did not receive effective assistance of counsel as required by the Sixth Amendment because his attorney failed to investigate or present mitigating evidence about his background and mental health during the penalty phase of his trial. This failure potentially influenced both the jury’s recommendation and judge’s imposition of a death sentence instead of life imprisonment without parole possibility - an alternative under Florida law at that time. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how courts have handled similar cases where ineffective counsel claims were raised, arguing for a need for clearer guidelines on this issue.