Respondent is in custody pursuant to several felony convictions that were affirmed by the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida. Torna v. State, 358 So. 2d 1109 (1978). The Florida Supreme Court dismissed an application for a writ of certiorari, on the ground that the application was not filed timely.1 362 So. 2d 1057 (1978). A petition for rehearing and clarification was later denied. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-15.

Respondent thereafter filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, contending that he had been denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel by the failure of his retained *587counsel to file the application for certiorari timely. The District Court denied the petition on the ground that the failure to file a timely application for certiorari did not render counsel’s actions “so grossly deficient as to render the proceedings fundamentally unfair.” Id., at A-22. In reaching this conclusion, the District Court noted that review by the Florida Supreme Court was discretionary; “[fjailure of counsel to .timely petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, therefore, only prevented [respondent] from applying for further discretionary review.” Id., at A-28. The Court of Appeals reversed. 649 F. 2d 290 (CA5 1981).2

In Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U. S. 600 (1974), this Court held that a criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to counsel to pursue discretionary state appeals or applications for review in this Court. Respondent does not contest the finding of the District Court that he had no absolute right to appeal his convictions to the Florida Supreme Court.3 Since respondent had no constitutional right to counsel, he *588could not be deprived of the effective assistance of counsel by his retained counsel’s failure to file the application timely.4 The District Court was correct in dismissing the petition.

The motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis is granted. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed.

It is so ordered.

dissenting.

The majority predicates its decision in this case on Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U. S. 600 (1974), which held that a criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to counsel to pursue discretionary state appeals. The majority reasons that because respondent had no constitutional right to counsel, his lawyer’s failure to file a timely appeal did not violate his right to effective assistance of counsel. In my view, however, Ross v. Moffitt was improperly decided. See id., at 619-621 (Douglas, J., dissenting, joined by Brennan and Marshall, JJ.). I believe that a defendant does have a constitutional right to counsel to pursue discretionary state appeals. Particularly where a criminal conviction is challenged on constitutional grounds, permissive review in the highest state court may be the most meaningful review a conviction will receive. Moreover, where a defendant seeks discretionary review, the assistance of an attorney is vital. Because I disagree with the Court’s position in Ross v. Moffitt, I disagree with its conclusion in this case also.

*589Even if I believed that Ross v. Moffttt were correctly decided, however, I would dissent from the majority’s conclusion that habeas corpus provides no recourse to a criminal defendant who has been denied his right to seek discretionary review because of his attorney’s error. Although respondent’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel may not have been infringed, he was denied his right to due process. Respondent’s counsel promised him that he would seek review in the Florida Supreme Court. Respondent reasonably relied on that promise. Counsel nonetheless failed to file a timely application.* As a result, respondent was deprived of his right to seek discretionary review by the State’s highest court. As I suggested above, this loss is significant. I would hold that when a defendant can show that he reasonably relied on his attorney’s promise to seek discretionary review, due process requires the State to consider his application, even when the application is untimely. To deny the right to seek discretionary review simply because of counsel’s error is fundamentally unfair. Requiring the state courts to consider untimely applications when a defendant can show that he reasonably relied on his counsel will not impose a heavy burden. The State is not required to grant the application; it is simply barred from dismissing the application on the ground that it was not timely filed.

*590The majority argues that even if deprivation of the right to petition the Florida Supreme Court for review implicates a due process interest, there was no state action here. It reasons that the deprivation of this right was caused by respondent’s counsel — a private retained attorney — and not by the State. Ante, at 588, n. 4. In my view, however, there was sufficient state involvement to satisfy the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority’s position is inconsistent with Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335 (1980). In that case, the Court rejected the respondent’s assertion that the failings of retained counsel at a criminal trial could not provide a basis for federal habeas corpus relief, because his conduct does not involve state action. It held that a state criminal trial, a proceeding initiated and conducted by the State itself, is an action of the State within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. “When a State obtains a criminal conviction through such a trial, it is the State that unconstitutionally deprives the defendant of his liberty.” Id., at 343. “[T]he State’s conduct of a criminal trial itself implicates the State in the defendant’s conviction.” Id., at 344.

It is true that Cuyler v. Sullivan involved a challenge to the conduct of a private attorney during the trial, while this case involves a challenge to the post-trial conduct of a private attorney. However, post-trial proceedings are an integral part of the criminal process. In my view, the State is just as much implicated in those proceedings as in the trial itself. Here, for example, Florida was responsible for structuring the procedure by which criminal convictions are reviewed. In particular, it designed the rules governing the right to seek discretionary review, including the rule that applications are automatically rejected when filed out of time. Under the circumstances, I think it clear that the state-action requirement is satisfied.