State Prisoners with Federal Claims in Federal Court: When Can a State Prisoner Overcome Procedural Default?

Megan Raker

When can the deficient performance of state post-conviction counsel excuse defects in a constitutional claim adjudicated in a federal habeas proceeding? Once a federal court decides whether to review the conviction or sentence of a state prisoner on federal habeas review, it will consider both the merits of the prisoner’s constitutional claim and whether the prisoner brought the claim to the federal court free of procedural defects. A frequent procedural defect—known as procedural default—occurs when a state court denies relief based on an adequate and independent state procedural ground.

Errors committed during post-conviction litigation might force an inmate to forfeit a meritorious claim in state court. Although the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee effective assistance of trial counsel in criminal proceedings, this right has not been extended to prisoners in state habeas proceedings. State habeas proceedings are distinct from and collateral to the direct review process where a prisoner may raise constitutional challenges to the conviction and sentence. When prisoners are forced to face this process without the assistance of counsel, the complex state habeas procedural rules may prevent a federal court—or any court—from adjudicating the prisoner’s meritorious claim alleging that the state is holding the prisoner in violation of the U.S. Constitution.