Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Widmer v. Belleque
Citation: 256 F. App'x 112Docket: No. 06-35797
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; November 25, 2007; Federal Appellate Court
Jan Widmer, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing that his claims were procedurally barred due to errors by his state post-conviction counsel, who allegedly failed to investigate the case adequately and filed a "no-merit" brief. The court affirms the denial, stating that there is no constitutional right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings, thus post-conviction counsel’s ineffectiveness does not constitute valid cause for procedural default, as established in Coleman v. Thompson. Widmer's argument that his counsel ceased to act as his agent due to these errors is also rejected, following the precedent that attorney error does not terminate the agency relationship. Furthermore, Widmer’s claim that the state's failure to appoint suitable counsel constituted a violation leading to procedural default is dismissed, as only violations of federal rights to effective counsel can establish cause. The ruling is affirmed and is not to be published or cited as precedent.