Act of June 7, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 319, § 1, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 2764-65(current version at Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.071, § 2(e)).In order to preserve an applicant's right to federal habeas review, state habeas counsel must take action.Once habeas relief was denied by this Court, habeas counsel failed to take any action to preserve the applicant's right to federal habeas review.

In support of this claim, Moore presented the same evidence that, in prior habeas petitions, he had claimed his attorney should have pre-sented at sentencing. The Texas Court of Criminal Ap-peals dismissed the petition as an abuse of the writ under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 11.071, §5(a) (Vernon Supp. 2002), which generally precludes second or subse-quent habeas petitions involving claims that could have been raised previously. Ex parte Moore, No. 42,810–02 (Apr. 30, 2002).

The claims are procedurally defaulted and cannot be considered.”Felix Rocha v. Thaler, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23696 (5th Cir. 11/17/2010) “Texas court did not decide a prisoner’s ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel claim on the merits when it found that the prisoner was not actually innocent of the death penalty and was not entitled to review of a successive habeas application under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.071, § 5(a)(3); federal review was procedurally barred.” [via LexisOne]People v. Richard Don Foster, 2010 Cal.

The claims are procedurally defaulted and cannot be considered.”Felix Rocha v. Thaler, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23696 (5th Cir. 11/17/2010) “Texas court did not decide a prisoner’s ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel claim on the merits when it found that the prisoner was not actually innocent of the death penalty and was not entitled to review of a successive habeas application under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.071, § 5(a)(3); federal review was procedurally barred.” [via LexisOne]People v. Richard Don Foster, 2010 Cal.

He asserted instead only that the exclusion of the confession amounted to an unconstitutional deprivation of due process. Therefore, under Tex. Code Crim. P. Ann. art. 11.071 § 5(a), Little would not be permitted to pursue habeas relief on this theory in a successive state petition. Absent proof of cause and prejudice or a miscarriage of justice -- showings the petitioner does not make -- Little is barred procedurally from pursuing his argument that the trial court should have conducted a hearing regarding the reliability of Thomas's confession.Even if Little's claim regarding the alleged lack of an evidentiary hearing were not procedurally barred,ChambersandGreenneither embody the constitutionally mandated hearing proposed by Little nor demand the admission of Thomas's confession.