Opinion ID: 2625383
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Petition for Review of the Question Whether Due Process Requires the Appointment of Counsel To Assist in Prosecuting an Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim Was Improvidently Granted.

Text: The court of appeals decided that the question of appointing counsel to assist Grinols in presenting his second post-conviction relief claim(that his counsel on his first post-conviction claim was ineffective)should be left to the superior court to decide. Upon further consideration, we conclude that we improvidently granted review of this question. [48] Accordingly, we decline to consider it further here.
Because a defendant has a constitutional right to effective counsel in a first application for post-conviction relief, that defendant must be given the opportunity to challenge the effectiveness of counsel in a second petition for post-conviction relief. We therefore AFFIRM the decision of the court of appeals on that issue and decline to address the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in such proceedings.