Opinion ID: 27763
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Provide Competent Habeas Counsel

Text: 28 Ogan argued for the first time in his federal habeas petition that the state courts violated his rights to meaningful access to the courts, equal protection, and due process by refusing to remedy its earlier error of appointing him ineffective counsel. 3 The district court determined that the claims were procedurally defaulted and could not constitute cause for any other procedurally barred claims. The district court further noted that there is no underlying right to counsel in state post-conviction review and that there is no cognizable constitutional claim based on the ineffectiveness of state habeas counsel. The district court concluded that to recognize a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of state habeas counsel would require the retroactive application of a new constitutional principle on collateral review in violation of the Supreme Court's decision in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989). 4 29 Ogan challenges the district court's determination that he could not assert a constitutional claim on the basis of ineffective assistance of state habeas counsel. He asserts that the Texas courts' appointment of incompetent counsel was a violation of his statutory right to competent counsel, as well as a violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Ogan avers that because Texas has opted to provide post-conviction review of death sentences under article 11.071 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and has guaranteed the appointment counsel under that statute, it must follow the statutory requirements in accordance with due process. He concedes that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee effective assistance of counsel in state post-conviction proceedings. However, he argues that there are other constitutional bases to support his claim that he was entitled to effective assistance of state habeas counsel, namely the First Amendment right to meaningful access to courts and the Fourteenth Amendment due process requirement that state forums and procedures be administered in a reasonably fair and consistent manner. 30 Ogan's claim that the Texas courts violated his constitutional rights by providing him ineffective habeas counsel is meritless. This Court has repeatedly held, usually in the context of rejecting petitioners' arguments that ineffective habeas counsel is sufficient cause to overcome a procedural bar, that there is no constitutional right to competent habeas counsel. See Jones v. Johnson, 171 F.3d 270, 277 (5th Cir.1999) (The law is well-established ... that such error committed in a post-conviction application, where there is no constitutional right to counsel, cannot constitute cause.); Callins v. Johnson, 89 F.3d 210, 212 (5th Cir.1996) ([T]here is no constitutional right to counsel in habeas proceedings.). Accordingly, Ogan's request for a COA on this issue is denied. 5