Opinion ID: 66016
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State Habeas Corpus Petition

Text: In 2002, Meriwether filed a pro se state habeas corpus petition raising six claims, including that he was denied the right to counsel and did not voluntarily and knowingly waive his right to counsel, both in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Meriwether argued any waiver of counsel was invalid 3 In the district court and in its initial brief before this Court, the State did not raise any issue about whether Meriwether had fully exhausted his federal constitutional claim in state court. Thus, we do not consider that issue. See United States v. Levy, 416 F.3d 1273, 1275 (11th Cir. 2005). 20 because, inter alia, the trial court never advised him of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. The state court held a hearing on Meriwether’s habeas petition. Meriwether and Shuman both testified, and their testimony primarily concerned the ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims. In 2004, the state court denied Meriwether’s habeas petition. Specifically, the state court concluded, inter alia, Meriwether’s right-to-counsel claims–that he was denied the right to counsel and did not voluntarily and knowingly waive his right to counsel–were litigated adversely to him on direct appeal and could not be relitigated in the state habeas proceedings. In 2005, the Supreme Court of Georgia denied him a certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of his state habeas petition.4