Opinion ID: 39954
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statutory Right to Appointed Counsel

Text: There is at least a question whether Howard’s statutory right to have appointed counsel represent him throughout every subsequent stage of available habeas corpus proceedings, including an application for a writ of certiorari, may have been violated. Under 21 U.S.C. §§ 848(q)(4)(B), [i]n any post conviction proceeding under section 2254 or 2255 of title 28 seeking to vacate or set aside a death sentence, any defendant who is or becomes financially unable to obtain adequate representation . . . shall be entitled to the appointment of [counsel] . . . . The statute further provides: Unless replaced by similarly qualified counsel upon the attorney’s own motion or upon motion of the defendant, each attorney so appointed shall represent the defendant throughout every subsequent stage of available judicial proceedings, including . . . applications for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, and all available post-conviction process . . . . 21 U.S.C. § 848(q)(8) (2000). According to Howard’s affidavit, his most recent appointed counsel, Steve Baxley, failed to inform Howard that (1) this court had denied Howard’s COA, (2) he no longer represented Howard, and (3) he did not intend to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. Howard has had a string of counsel represent him throughout his federal habeas corpus proceedings. Keith Weiser represented Howard on his initial proceedings before the district court. Howard v. Dretke, No. V-02-01 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2002). However, the district court granted Weiser’s motion to withdraw from representation after the district court’s proceedings. -12- Howard v. Dretke, No. V-03-48 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 2004). The district court then appointed Baxley “to represent Howard throughout the remainder of his federal proceedings.” Id. In September 2005, William Zapalac, counsel to the clerk’s office of United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, e-mailed Baxley, “inquiring whether [Baxley] intend[ed] to file anything in this court on behalf of Mr. Howard prior to his scheduled execution.” E-mail from William Zapalac, Counsel to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Clerk’s Office, to Steve Baxley (Sept. 21, 2005, 11:56:00 CDT). Baxley’s complete response follows: “My understanding is that I no longer represent Mr. Howard and that I was only appointed for the limited purpose of filing an appeal regarding the denial of the certificate of appealability.” Id. Judging by his response to this court, Baxley may not have understood that he had any obligation beyond filing an appeal regarding the district court’s denial of a COA. That said, we do not believe that there is any reasonable probability that, had Baxley filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, the writ would have been granted or a substantial possibility that our decision to deny a COA would have been reversed.