* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-10350

_____________________

EDDIE HOSEA HUNT,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Northern District of Texas

_______________________________________________________

April 24, 1996

Before REAVLEY, GARWOOD and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hunt committed three separate armed robberies in a span of

approximately twenty days. He was indicted for each robbery, and

in a consolidated trial was convicted on each indictment in a

Texas state court. Hunt was sentenced to 95 years in prison, 50

years in prison and a $10,000 fine, and life imprisonment. Under

state law, the sentences were to be served concurrently. His
 

1Hunt v. State, Nos. 05-91-00767(68 and 69)-CR (Tex.App.-

Dallas, August, 14, 1992)(unpublished).

 

2Ex parte Hunt, No. 24,065-01 (Tex. Crim. App. November 18,

1992) (application denied without written order on findings of

trial court without a hearing); Ex parte Hunt, No. 24,065-02

(Tex. Crim. App. March 3, 1993) (application denied without

written order); Ex parte Hunt, No. 24,065-03 (Tex. Crim. App.

November 17, 1993) (application denied without written order on

findings of trial court without a hearing).

2

conviction was affirmed by a Texas court of appeals.1 Hunt did

not petition the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for

discretionary review. In Hunt’s post-conviction pleadings, the

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied his three applications for

habeas relief.2 Hunt then filed the instant federal habeas

petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Based upon a magistrate’s recommendation, the district court

denied Hunt’s petition for habeas relief and dismissed the

petition. The district court also denied Hunt a certificate of

probable cause to appeal. Hunt alleged that he received

ineffective assistance of counsel because his appellate counsel’s

brief failed to raise any claims specific to one of the three

convictions (cause number F91-39619-TP for which he was sentenced

to 50 years imprisonment and ordered to pay a $10,000 fine). We

granted a certificate of probable cause and ordered the state to

address “whether Hunt must show prejudice to obtain relief on his

claim that his appellate counsel failed to argue any issue

relating to No. F91-39619-TP.” Finding that he must, we affirm.
 

3Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80

L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct.

824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

 

4United States v. Riascos, 76 F.3d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1996).

 

5Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 88, 109 S.Ct. 346, 354, 102

L.Ed.2d 300 (1988).

3

Appellate counsel filed a brief in Hunt’s consolidated

appeal and failed to raise any issues with respect to one of

Hunt’s three convictions. Essentially, on direct appeal, if Hunt

had been successful on all complaints, his conviction in cause

number F91-39619-TP would not have been affected. Was Hunt

constructively without counsel on appeal, or was counsel

ineffective?

Where a defendant is without counsel, it is inappropriate to

apply either the prejudice requirement of Strickland or the

harmless-error analysis of Chapman.

3 Prejudice is presumed when

a defendant experiences a complete denial of counsel, whether

actual or constructive.4 However, leaving a defendant

“completely without representation during the appellate court’s

actual decisional process . . . is quite different from a case in

which it is claimed that counsel’s performance was ineffective.”5

Appellate counsel raised several grounds for appeal, all of which

were rejected by the court of appeals. Hunt does not claim that

he was constructively without appellate counsel, only that

appellate counsel failed to raise complaints as to one of the
 

6Penson, 488 U.S. at 88, 109 S.Ct. at 354.

 

7Compare United States v. Riascos, 76 F.3d 93, 94 (5th Cir.

1996) (defendant effectively had no counsel, where attorney filed

no appeal and made no objections to defendant’s sentencing after

defendant plead guilty); Childs v. Collins, 995 F.2d 67, 68 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 613 (1993) (counsel failed to give

notice of appeal and withdrew without informing defendant or

trial court); Bonneau v. United States, 961 F.2d 17 (1st Cir.

1992) (defendant who lost his right to appeal because of

dereliction of counsel was presumptively prejudiced); Lofton v.

Whitley, 905 F.2d 885 (5th Cir. 1990) (counsel who presented no

claims of error to appellate court was afforded no

representation); Abdurrahman v. Henderson, 897 F.2d 71 (2d Cir.

1990) (where defendant receives more than nominal representation

during state appeal, Strickland applies); Cf. Lombard v. Lynaugh,

868 F.2d 1475, 1480 (5th Cir. 1989).

 

8Sharp v. Puckett, 930 F.2d 450, 452 (5th Cir. 1991).

 

9“To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel, Hunt must show that (1) counsel’s performance was so

deficient as to fall below an objective standard of

reasonableness and (2) there is a reasonable probability that,

but for the unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding

would have been different.” Strickland, supra; Ward v. Whitley,

21 F.3d 1355, 1361 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1257

(1995).

4

convictions. Hunt was not “completely without representation

during the appellate court’s actual decisional process.”6 We

hold that Hunt was represented by counsel.7 Counsel is not

ineffective because he failed to raise issues requested by a

defendant or because he failed to raise every possible point on

appeal.8 Therefore, Hunt was required to meet the prejudice

prong of Strickland.

9 This he failed to do. 
5

Hunt raises numerous other “grounds of error” for our

review. After careful consideration of these issues, we AFFIRM

the district court’s order denying Hunt relief.