Ex Parte Anthony Charles Graves, Applicant

Summary

The Court held that an allegation that prior habeas counsel was not competent does not create a cognizable habeas claim and therefore cannot satisfy the statutory requirements for a subsequent writ under article 11.071, §5, dismissing the petition as an abuse of the writ. The decision rests on the view that there is no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in post‑conviction habeas proceedings and that the statute’s competence requirement pertains only to the attorney’s qualifications at appointment, not to the quality of representation. Several dissenting opinions argue that the statute should be read to require effective assistance and would remand the case for further consideration.