Opinion ID: 29729
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ineffective Assistance of Habeas Counsel

Text: Crawford argues that his original habeas counsel, Mr. Quinn, was constitutionally ineffective because he filed a petition containing only issues that were already being considered on direct appeal. Crawford identifies several potential issues that Mr. Quinn should have argued on collateral review, including trial counsel’s lack of qualifications as a criminal attorney and trial counsel’s ineffective assistance during the voir dire, guilt/innocence, and punishment stages of the trial. Crawford also notes that trial counsel should have, but failed to, challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court; he reasons that, because the body was discovered in Louisiana and no proof was ever had that the murder was committed in Texas, only a Louisiana state court could properly have had jurisdiction over his case. 7 The district court considered the questions of habeas counsel’s competency – except for the jurisdictional question, which Crawford raises in this appeal for the first time – and found them to be procedurally barred. Alternatively, the district court found that Crawford’s claims about the competency of habeas counsel are not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(i). Crawford presents no new argument as to why the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in rejecting his successive habeas petition as procedurally barred or why the district court erred in finding that his claims about the competency of habeas counsel are not cognizable under § 2254(i). As for the jurisdictional issue, Crawford may not raise it for the first time in this court. See, e.g., Johnson v. Puckett, 176 F.3d 809, 814 (5th Cir. 1999) (“[A] contention not raised by a habeas petitioner in the district court cannot be considered for the first time on appeal from that court’s denial of habeas relief.”). Crawford has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason would find the district court’s resolution of either issue debatable. Therefore, he has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and we decline to grant a COA.