Opinion ID: 29675
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: state habeas errors

Text: Hines next seeks a COA for his claim that the state habeas court erred by not hiring him a DNA expert to assist in preparation of his claim, thereby depriving him of due process and effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied Hines relief on this claim on alternative grounds. First, it addressed the merits of the claim, and concluded it was not unreasonable for the state court to deny Hines access to an expert to develop his claims. In the alternative, the district court held that the claim of error in the state habeas proceeding was not cognizable on federal habeas, as the claim was an attack on a proceeding collateral to the detention rather than the detention itself. Errors and deficiencies in state habeas proceedings cannot form the basis of relief in a federal habeas application. Trevino v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 173, 180 (5th Cir. 1999). Hines argues reasonable jurists would debate the district court’s application of this straightforward rule because the Texas state constitution guarantees petitioners the right to “competent counsel” in state habeas proceedings. This state created right to habeas counsel creates a federal constitutional right to effective counsel, Hines reasons. Hines’ argument is unavailing, as we rejected this exact 13 argument in In re Goff, 250 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2001). There we explained that under Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987), states that choose to provide petitioners counsel in state postconviction proceedings are not obligated to ensure that counsel meets constitutional minimums for defense attorneys at trial or on direct appeal. In re Goff, 250 F.3d at 275. The reason, we explained, was that, “the Constitution does not put the State to the difficult choice between affording no counsel whatsoever,” or following strict constitutional guidelines for the counsel it provides. Id., quoting Finley, 481 U.S. at 559. Thus, as Texas was under no obligation to provide Hines with counsel for his state habeas proceeding, the ineffective assistance of that counsel, or counsel’s failure to meet minimum due process standards, cannot form the basis of federal habeas relief. Hines’ request for a COA on this claim is denied.