28 U.S.C. § 2254 : US Code - Section 2254: State custody; remedies in Federal courts

Search 28 U.S.C. § 2254 : US Code - Section 2254: State custody; remedies in Federal courts

      (a) The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a
    district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas
    corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of
    a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation
    of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.
      (b)(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a
    person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall
    not be granted unless it appears that - 
        (A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the
      courts of the State; or
        (B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective
      process; or
        (ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective
      to protect the rights of the applicant.

      (2) An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on
    the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust
    the remedies available in the courts of the State.
      (3) A State shall not be deemed to have waived the exhaustion
    requirement or be estopped from reliance upon the requirement
    unless the State, through counsel, expressly waives the
    requirement.
      (c) An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the
    remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning
    of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to
    raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.
      (d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a
    person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall
    not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on
    the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of
    the claim - 
        (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
      unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as
      determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
        (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
      determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in
      the State court proceeding.

      (e)(1) In a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of
    habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a
    State court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State
    court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the
    burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and
    convincing evidence.
      (2) If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a
    claim in State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an
    evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows that - 
        (A) the claim relies on - 
          (i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to
        cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was
        previously unavailable; or
          (ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously
        discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and

        (B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to
      establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for
      constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found
      the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.

      (f) If the applicant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
    adduced in such State court proceeding to support the State court's
    determination of a factual issue made therein, the applicant, if
    able, shall produce that part of the record pertinent to a
    determination of the sufficiency of the evidence to support such
    determination. If the applicant, because of indigency or other
    reason is unable to produce such part of the record, then the State
    shall produce such part of the record and the Federal court shall
    direct the State to do so by order directed to an appropriate State
    official. If the State cannot provide such pertinent part of the
    record, then the court shall determine under the existing facts and
    circumstances what weight shall be given to the State court's
    factual determination.
      (g) A copy of the official records of the State court, duly
    certified by the clerk of such court to be a true and correct copy
    of a finding, judicial opinion, or other reliable written indicia
    showing such a factual determination by the State court shall be
    admissible in the Federal court proceeding.
      (h) Except as provided in section 408 of the Controlled
    Substances Act, in all proceedings brought under this section, and
    any subsequent proceedings on review, the court may appoint counsel
    for an applicant who is or becomes financially unable to afford
    counsel, except as provided by a rule promulgated by the Supreme
    Court pursuant to statutory authority. Appointment of counsel under
    this section shall be governed by section 3006A of title 18.
      (i) The ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel during Federal
    or State collateral post-conviction proceedings shall not be a
    ground for relief in a proceeding arising under section 2254.