Opinion ID: 700516
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of Evidence of Mississippi Robbery

Text: 43 Coulter argues that the introduction of evidence during his third trial of an uncharged robbery, which he committed in Mississippi the day before the Alabama murder, violated his right to due process of law. Coulter's confession, which was read before the jury, stated, in relevant part: On the way to Memphis on Tuesday morning we robbed a place near Michigan City on Highway 72 in Mississippi. It had one gas pump and it was also a store. We got $52.00 off of it. Relying on state law, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that this claim was barred from coram nobis review because Coulter had abandoned it on appeal. 11 Coulter, 494 So.2d at 906. Therefore, federal habeas review of th[is] claim[ ] is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claim[ ] will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750, 111 S.Ct. at 2565. 44 Coulter contends that his attorneys rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to raise this issue on appeal. In order to constitute cause sufficient to overcome procedural default, a counsel's performance must be constitutionally ineffective under the standards of Strickland v. Washington.... Jackson v. Herring, 42 F.3d 1350, 1358 (11th Cir.1995). Coulter, however, has not shown a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. Thus, we reject his contention that his appellate lawyers' failure to raise this issue on appeal constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, and therefore serves as cause to excuse his procedural default. 45 Coulter also asserts that this court's refusal to address this claim would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court has stated that in an extraordinary case, where a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent, a federal habeas court may grant the writ even in the absence of a showing of cause for the procedural default. Carrier, 477 U.S. at 496, 106 S.Ct. at 2649. Coulter has made no showing that he is actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. Consequently, we decline to address the merits of Coulter's claim for habeas corpus relief on this issue.