Content area
Full Text
Prisoners face many barriers when petitioning for federal habeas corpus relief, especially when asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims. The Supreme Court's decision in Trevino v. Thaler attempted to lower these barriers by carving out a narrow exception to the procedural default rule. Although a step in the right direction, this narrow exception fell short of meaningful habeas corpus reform. This Comment argues that although the Supreme Court's decision in Trevino appears to guarantee habeas corpus petitioners the ability to raise ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims in federal court, it is unlikely to provide prisoners meaningful opportunities to assert these claims.
Introduction
As guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution,1 the "right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial is a bedrock principle in our justice system."2 In order to protect this constitutional right, convicted criminal defendants are able to bring ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IATC) claims; however, they must closely follow procedural rules to obtain access to this form of relief.3 For example, a prisoner who wants to raise an IATC claim in a federal habeas corpus proceeding based on a state conviction must first exhaust all available state court remedies.4 This means that the prisoner must have previously raised the claim either on direct appeal or in a state habeas corpus petition.5 Otherwise, the claim is considered procedurally defaulted and barred from federal habeas review.6
In Trevino v. Thaler, the Supreme Court preserved its longstanding rule that states need not provide postconviction counsel to prisoners bringing IATC claims7; however, the Court's decision did ensure that substantial IATC claims-claims that previously had been procedurally barred from federal court as a consequence of errors by state postconviction counsel- would be reviewed on their merits.8 By doing so, the Court sought to create a special safeguard to ensure that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel- the right that secures all other rights9-is meaningfully protected.
The Court based its decision in Trevino on the limitations of Texas procedural law. Although Texas law does not place an outright ban on IATC claims on direct review, the "procedural framework, by reason of its design and operation, makes it highly unlikely in a typical case that a defendant will have a meaningful...