context: Finally, Hartley argues that we should remand the case for new postcon-viction proceedings because postconviction counsel (Morrow and Malnick) failed to adequately investigate the case and to obtain a mental health expert. Hartley concedes that this Court has held, and, in fact, "all courts" have held, that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee a right to the effective assistance of postconviction counsel.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 698 So.2d 247, 248
citation_a.parenthetical: "[C]laims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel do not present a valid basis for relief."
citation_a.sentence: See Lambrix v. State, 698 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla.1996) (“[C]laims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel do not present a valid basis for relief.”); see also Zack v. State, 911 So.2d 1190, 1203 (Fla.2005) (“Under Florida and federal law, a defendant has no constitutional right to effective collateral counsel.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 911 So.2d 1190, 1203
citation_b.parenthetical: "Under Florida and federal law, a defendant has no constitutional right to effective collateral counsel."
citation_b.sentence: See Lambrix v. State, 698 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla.1996) (“[C]laims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel do not present a valid basis for relief.”); see also Zack v. State, 911 So.2d 1190, 1203 (Fla.2005) (“Under Florida and federal law, a defendant has no constitutional right to effective collateral counsel.”).