Opinion ID: 525263
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ineffective Assistance as a Basis for Habeas Relief

Text: 8 Pelmer raised his ineffective trial counsel claim for the first time in his state petition for writ of error coram nobis. On Pelmer's appeal of the denial of the state writ, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that because this issue was not raised on direct appeal, it could not be raised in a subsequent petition for writ of error coram nobis. 484 So.2d at 556. A defendant who is procedurally barred from raising a federal constitutional claim in state court is also barred from raising the claim in a federal habeas petition unless he can show cause for and actual prejudice from making the default. Gates v. Zant, 863 F.2d 1492, 1500 (11th Cir.1989); accord Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). Pelmer does not attempt to show cause for this default. Instead, he argues that the claim is not barred because the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals went on to discuss the issue on the merits concluding that Pelmer received effective assistance of counsel. 9 A state court is entitled to express its views on federal constitutional issues without waiving its procedural default rules. Hall v. Wainwright, 733 F.2d 766, 777 (11th Cir.1984). [A] procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on ... habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case 'clearly and expressly' states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar. Harris v. Reed, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 1043, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989). Pelmer asserts that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals plainly addressed and decided the merits of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Before discussing the merits, however, the state appellate court explicitly held that this issue cannot be raised in a subsequent [that is, following direct appeal] petition for writ of error coram nobis. 484 So.2d at 556. The state appellate court then prefaced its discussion of the merits with the words even assuming the claim is valid. That the consideration of the merits rests on an assumption made for the sake of discussion shows that the court's earlier ruling on the procedural bar had substance. These statements demonstrate clearly that the state appellate court intended to invoke procedural default as an alternative ground (if not the sole ground) for denying Pelmer relief. We will respect that intent.