rejecting petitioner’s argument that new affidavits were admissible because they supplemented rather than fundamentally altered his state court claim
How later courts described this case
- rejecting petitioner’s argument that new affidavits were admissible because they supplemented rather than fundamentally altered his state court claim
- noting that Article 11.071, Section 5, is an "adequate" state procedural ground for purposes of applying Coleman
- “Because counsel for [petitioner] who filed his first state habeas application did not abandon him, but simply did not raise issues [petitioner] now would like to argue, Maples is inapposite.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GRAVES, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I disagree with the majority’s finding that Ibarra’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is defaulted. The majority rejects Ibarra’s reliance on Martinez v. Ryan, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1309 , 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012), for the reasons explained in a June 28, 2012, order in this case. Because I continue to disagree for the reasons explained in my separate opinion to that order, I respectfully dissent. See Ibarra v. Thaler, 687 F.3d 222 (5th Cir.2012)(Graves, J., dissenting in part).