Opinion ID: 23165
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: showing of cause for failure to object

Text: 49 During his state habeas proceedings, Tucker argued that evidence of his prior conviction for the aggravated assault of his cellmate was inadmissible because it was based on an involuntary guilty plea and entered without the effective assistance of counsel. The state court found the claim procedurally barred. 50 Tucker now contends that the district court erred in concluding (without a hearing) that Tucker could not show cause for counsel's failure to object to the admission of his prior conviction for aggravated assault at sentencing. If a state court has explicitly relied on a procedural bar, a state prisoner may not obtain federal habeas relief absent a showing of cause for the default and actual prejudice that is attributable to the default. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2565 (1991). Ineffective assistance of counsel may constitute cause. Ellis v. Lynaugh, 883 F.2d 363, 367 (5th Cir. 1989). 51 Assuming arguendo that counsel's failure to object to the admission of the prior conviction at the punishment phase constituted deficient performance, we do not believe he can establish that he was prejudiced as a result. 14 As such, Tucker has failed to show the required cause and prejudice to overcome the procedural default. 52 During the punishment phase of Tucker's trial, the State introduced evidence of the official conviction and also presented the testimony of Chad Sparkman, a correctional officer who was first on the scene of the assault and conducted the investigation. Sparkman saw Tucker's injured cellmate immediately after the attack with two homemade weapons still protruding from the victim's temple and throat. While still in the cell with Savant, Tucker stated to Sparkman that he killed his cellie. Even assuming arguendo that counsel could have successfully excluded evidence of this allegedly unconstitutional conviction, Tucker has not shown that Sparkman's testimony regarding the circumstances of the attack would have been inadmissible. As a result, Tucker has not established prejudice. Thus, the district court properly concluded that Tucker failed to overcome the procedural bar to his claim that his prior conviction was inadmissible.