Opinion ID: 32033
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: state habeas counsel failed to raise the

Text: Jones contends that the death penalty, as argument Jones wishes to assert here, Jones applied to a seventeen-year-old, violates the reasons that Texas failed to meet its burden to Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The provide competent counsel, and therefore the state argues, inter alia, that we should affirm process was ineffective to protect his rights. the district court, which found the claim pro- The district court rejected this argument and cedurally barred because petitioner did not found that it is procedurally barred. present it to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Jones does not address this holding, and we Failure to exhaust under § 2254(b)(1)(B)(i) find nothing in the record to undermine it.7 cannot be excused by arguing that appointed state habeas counsel provided ineffective as-