In the case of George Smith, Warden v. Lee Robbins in 1999, the Supreme Court addressed whether a habeas petitioner who alleged that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal must demonstrate that he had instructed his attorney to do so or at least show that he reasonably demonstrated such interest. The court held in favor of Robbins and ruled that when an attorney fails to file a requested appeal due to professional incompetence, this constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. This decision is significant because it established precedent regarding what constitutes effective legal representation and set standards for attorneys' obligations towards their clients' expressed interests.

In the dissenting opinion for George Smith, Warden v. Lee Robbins, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect because it failed to recognize a clear violation of Robbins' Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel. He contended that Robbins' attorney had not only neglected his duty by failing to present key mitigating evidence during sentencing but also misled the jury about its role in determining punishment. This combination of errors, he believed, significantly undermined confidence in the outcome of Robbins’ trial and thus warranted habeas relief under established precedent. Furthermore, Justice Stevens criticized the majority’s application of federal law as overly restrictive and inconsistent with previous rulings on ineffective assistance claims.