Opinion ID: 32033
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: sistance. Martinez v. Johnson, 255 F.3d 229,

Text: Jones argues that he had ineffective 240-41 (5th Cir. 2001). Moreover, “failure to assistance at trial because counsel failed provide ‘competent’ counsel for a state habeas adequately to develop and present evidence of petition does not fall under the general catchall mental health problems that could have exception provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)- mitigated against a death sentence. Jones (B)(ii).” Id. at 238 n.10.8 Jones argues that admits that the claim is unexhausted, because we provided insufficient reasoning in Marhe failed to raise it in state habeas proceedings, tinez, suggesting that perhaps the court misand further concedes that he could not satisfy understood the contention, and urges that we the state’s requirements for filing a second “should fairly address the argument.” But, habeas application. See TEX. CODE CRIM. absent “an intervening contrary or superseding PROC. art 11.071 § 5(a). He contends, decision by this court sitting en banc or by the however, that counsel’s failure to raise the United States Supreme Court, a panel cannot issue in his state habeas application, together overrule a prior panel’s decision.” Burge v. with the refusal of the Court of Criminal Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466 Appeals to allow a second filing, meets the (5th Cir. 1999). Under Martinez, Jones’s requirements of § 2254(b)(1)(B)(ii), which claim is procedurally barred. allows a grant of a writ of habeas corpus where “circumstances exist that render [state corrective] process ineffective to protect the 8 rights of the applicant.” Furthermore, the statutory right created in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.071 § 2(a) relates Jones notes that Texas’s 1995 Habeas Cor- to “habeas counsel’s qualifications, experience, and pus Reform Act (“Reform Act”) provides that abilities at the time of his appointment,” not “the “an applicant shall be represented by final product of representation.” Ex parte Graves, 70 S.W.3d 103, 113-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). competent counsel unless the applicant has Jones’s argument rests entirely on state habeas elected to proceed pro se . . . .” TEX. CODE counsel’s inadequate representation in failing to CRIM. PROC. ART. 11.071 § 2(a). Because raise a particular claim; he makes no arguments as to counsel’s general competence. Therefore, to the extent that Jones’s argument rests on the guar- 7 This argument also is foreclosed by precedent. antees of the Reform Act, his reliance is misplaced, See Beazley, 242 F.3d at 268-69 (citing Stanford because we defer to the Court of Criminal Appeals’ v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361, 370-73 (1989)). interpretation of a Texas statute. 7 AFFIRMED. 8