Opinion ID: 71523
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appellate Counsel's Conflict of Interest as Cause for Avoiding Procedural Default

Text: Williams also argues that we should excuse his procedural default because his appointed state post-conviction counsel labored under an impermissible conflict of interest. According to Williams, the attorney whom the state trial judge appointed to prepare Williams's state habeas application was married to an attorney in the Harris County District Attorney's Office. Williams cites Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 1.06(b) for his argument that a lawyer shall not represent a person when such a conflict exists, and argues that this conflict should serve as cause for overcoming the procedural default barring federal consideration of Williams's IAC at sentencing claim. Because [a] state prisoner has no constitutional right to an attorney in state post-conviction proceedings, [w]e have repeatedly held that ineffective assistance of state habeas or post-conviction counsel cannot serve as cause for a procedural default. Matchett v. Dretke, 380 F.3d 844, 849 (5th Cir.2004). [15] Despite Williams's allegations of an ethical violation on the part of his state habeas counsel, Williams cannot overcome his procedural default on this ground. Because reasonable jurists would not debate this conclusion, we deny Williams's request for a COA on this issue.