People v. Pittman

Defendant appealed from the trial court’s denial of his motion for leave to file a pro se successive post-conviction petition, arguing that he established the requisite cause and prejudice for leave to file his successive petition because appellate post-conviction counsel failed to appeal three arguable constitutional claims alleged in his initial post-conviction petition. The appellate court affirmed, explaining that post-conviction proceedings are limited to constitutional claims arising from the original trial and that appellate post-conviction counsel's representation is not a constitutional claim. (VAN TINE and D.B. WALKER, concurring)