633 N.W.2d 825 (2001). Most rules have exceptions, however, and that includes this one. When “the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice,” the federal courts will consider a federal claim raised under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750; see Lancaster v. Adams, 324 F.3d 423, 436 (6th Cir.2003). An inmate may show “cause” for a default by pointing to an explanation beyond the prisoner’s control, such as ineffective assistance of counsel. See Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986); see also Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 396, 105 S. Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1984) (<HOLDING>). An inmate may show “prejudice” arising from a
holding that defendants are entitled to effective assistance of appellate counsel on their first appeal as of right holding the sixth amendment right to effective assistance extends to a criminal defendants first appeal as of right recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel holding that when a state provides a first appeal as of right due process requires that defendants receive the effective assistance of counsel during that appeal holding that the due process clause requires that criminal defendants be provided the effective assistance of counsel on their first appeal of right but declining to devise the means by which to define the appropriate standards for judging claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel