I concur with the majority on all issues but one. I would hold that petitioner did not receive adequate assistance of counsel in the state post-conviction hearing.
At the beginning of petitioner’s direct testimony at that hearing, his attorney suggested that petitioner proceed by going through the petition for post-conviction relief himself; counsel did nothing more than assist petitioner in reading and summarizing the petition. Counsel was not prepared to do more. He had not looked at the trial transcripts prior to the hearing. He apparently did not understand the nature and purpose of the proceeding.
Although the principal purpose of the hearing was to determine if petitioner’s trial counsel rendered effective assistance, petitioner was compelled to conduct most of the cross-examination of his trial counsel without the assistance of an attorney. In consequence, the facts on this central issue were not adequately developed.
Petitioner may not have had a strong case, but he was entitled to a fair chance to present it. That he did not have.