OPINION ON REMAND and ORDER

JOHN McBRYDE, District Judge.

This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by petitioner, Larry Nuell Neathery, a state prisoner, against William Stephens, Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, respondent.

I. Factual and Procedural History

This court set out the procedural history of this case in its September 22, 2011, Memorandum Opinion and Order as follows:

Mem. Op. and J. 1-2, ECF No. 49 (citations omitted). The offenses involved five complainants, B.H., C.H., M.L., C.M., and D.M., all of whom were under the age of fourteen at the time of the alleged offenses. Id. 2-3.

Petitioner's claims were addressed by this court under the general categories of ineffective assistance of counsel, double jeopardy, insufficiency of the evidence, unconstitutional state court decisions and jury instructions, and newly discovered evidence. Id. 4. This court determined that petitioner's ineffective assistance claims raised for the first time in his federal petition were procedurally barred and proceeded to consider only those ineffective assistance claims raised in both petitioner's state habeas applications and his federal petition. Id. 6-15. On January 13, 2014, the Supreme Court granted petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari and remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of its decision in Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013). Order 1, ECF No. 76.

II. Discussion

It has long been established that

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991) (emphasis added).

In addressing the "cause" prong for overcoming procedural default, Coleman held that the ineffectiveness of state habeas counsel could not constitute such cause. Id. at 752-53. However, in Martinez v. Ryan, the Supreme Court recognized an exceptionto Coleman, holding that

132 s. Ct. at 1320. To succeed in establishing cause, a petitioner must show (1) that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial is substantial—i.e., has some merit—and (2) that habeas counsel was ineffective in failing to present those claims in his first state habeas proceeding. Id. at 1318.

In Trevino, the Supreme Court extended Martinez to Texas state prisoners, holding that, although Texas does not preclude prisoners from raising ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims on direct appeal, the rule of Martinez nevertheless applies because "the Texas procedural system-as a matter of its structure, design, and operation-does not offer most defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal." 133 S. Ct. at 1921.

In light of this new rule, on March 26, 2014, the Fifth Circuit remanded the case to this court for reconsideration of petitioner's previously procedurally barred ineffective assistance claims in light of Trevino. The Fifth Circuit noted "that, under Trevino, it may be possible for the district court to hear at least some of Neathery's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel which would otherwise be procedurally defaulted, to the extent Neathery either lacked counsel or had ineffective counsel in his initial collateral review proceeding in state court." Op. Order of USCA 3, ECF No. 80. Toward that end, the Fifth Circuit instructs the court to "(1) determine which, if any, of Neathery's ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims are preserved because he alleged that he either lacked counsel or had ineffective counsel in his initial collateral review proceeding in state court; and (2) determine the merits of any preserved claims." Id. This opinion on remand is limited to consideration of those issues only.1

Petitioner was unrepresented in his state habeas proceedings. It is necessary then to first attempt to discern which, if any, of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims he asserted for the first time in his federal habeas petition and were previously held to be procedurally barred. This is a tall order as petitioner asserts a virtual glut of such claims. Nevertheless, an effort is made to do so, limited to petitioner's federal petition and memorandum in support thereof. Pet., ECF No. 4; Pet'r's Untitled Pleading, ECF No. 5.2

Petitioner asserts he was represented prior to and during the grand jury proceedings by J. Don Carter, prior to trial by Tiffany L. Lewis, at trial by Leon Haley Jr. and Roderick C. White, and after trial by Richard Alley. Pet. 11-12, 14, 16, 18, 20, ECF No. 4. Under Ground One of his federal petition, petitioner raises the following ineffective assistance claims:

Pet. 11, ECF No. 4.3

In various inserted and attached pages to his petition and/or in his memorandum, petitioner also claims J. Don Carter, who preceded Haley and White, was ineffective by failing to obtain the constitutionally required examining trial before the grand jury proceedings, failing to present the videotapes of the interviews and re-interviews of the victims, failing to call witnesses on his behalf before the grand jury, failing to challenge the grand jury array before the grand jury was empaneled, bribing the trial court judge, and failing to return exculpatory evidence to him. Pet. 16, 18, ECF No. 4. Petitioner claims Tiffany L. Lewis, who also preceded Haley and White, was ineffective by "suddenly and mysteriously" disappearing before the pretrial hearing without withdrawing as a matter of record, causing the loss of additional exculpatory evidence, refusing to give the investigator any information or direction so an investigation could be conducted, bribing the trial court judge, and failing to file motions to dismiss the prosecution due to "unconstitutionally empaneled grand juries and multiplicitous double jeopardy violating indictments." Id. 18.

In addition to those claims previously considered by the court, petitioner also claims Haley and White were ineffective by "incompetently withdrawing, waiving, abandoning, ignoring and failing to re-urge, argue or submit" motions for court-appointed expert witnesses and a private investigator, failing to file motions in limine, to suppress illegal photographic evidence and extraneous offense evidence, failing to file a motion "requesting the trial court to order the state prosecutors to expressly articulate the specific purposes for each and every extraneous crime, wrong, act that was not included within the charged offenses in the five indictments, 25 counts in this petitioner's case prior to introduction and admission in the presence of the jury.,"withdrawing a motion to sever the offenses causing "the jury to be exposed to the appearance of overwhelming evidence" against him, failing to warn him "about the critical, crucial and highly significant dangers of trying all four different types of felony offenses simultaneously with only one jury," acting as an "auxiliary prosecutor" by coercing, "after much illegal coaching, manipulating and persuading," one of the victims into falsely accusing him, presenting incriminating evidence against him, badgering, belittling and compelling him to be a witness against himself, failing to request lesser-includedoffense instructions, objecting to the double jeopardy violations, and failing to request the trial court order the state to make an election as to which offense(s) it would rely upon for conviction. Pet'r's Mem. 3-13, ECF No. 5.

Finally, petitioner also claims that appellate counsel Richard Alley was ineffective by "willfully sabotag[ing] the petition for discretionary review to harm" him. Pet. 11, ECF. No. 4. More specifically, petitioner claims Alley was ineffective by failing to present issues on appeal regarding his "ineffective assistance of trial counsel errors" and trial court error, filing a frivolous motion for new trial, and failing to conform to common appellate rules for presenting issues or explain his failure to do so. Pet'r's Untitled Pleading, 14, ECF No. 5.

Although these claims previously considered procedurally barred may be preserved for review under Trevino, the claims are wholly conclusory and, thus, insufficient to entitle petitioner to relief. Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524, 530 (5th Cir. 1990). Petitioner has not made a substantial showing that he was denied effective assistance of counsel within the requirement of Martinez and Trevino.

For the reasons discussed herein,

The court ORDERS the petition of petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and any pending motions not previously ruled upon, be, and are hereby, denied.

Pursuant to Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), for the reasons discussed herein, the court further ORDERS that a certificate of appealability be, and is hereby, denied, as petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.