concurring.
I concur in the judgment. I also concur in the majority opinion, with one qualification. It is unnecessary to conclude that our court’s decisions in Isham, Bronaugh, *360and Searcy were in direct conflict with White v. Schotten, and I would not do so. While there is clearly some tension between the reasoning of White and that of our later statute of limitations cases, White’s characterization of Rule 26(B) for purposes of the constitutional right to counsel did not necessarily govern the different issue of how Rule 26(B) should be characterized for purposes of the AEDPA statute of limitations.