Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): court denied the petition based on its conclusion that Boles had procedurally defaulted his claims by not raising them properly in the state court. Boles contends that appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness in failing to preserve his claims for review is cause for his procedural default and resulted in prejudice. Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 451, 120 S.Ct. 1587, 146 L.Ed.2d 518 (2000). This contention was raised for the first time in Boles’s response to the order to show cause issued by the magistrate judge and was never presented in his habeas petition or in any appeal to the Arizona state courts. Consequently, Boles has not exhausted this claim in state court and the petition should have been dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c); Edwards, 429 U.S. at 451, 453 (<HOLDING>). VACATED and REMANDED with instructions to 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel (B) holding that the novelty of a petitioners claim can constitute cause for a procedural default (C) holding that ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes cause for procedural default only if counsels performance was constitutionally ineffective (D) holding that each subcategory of ineffective assistance of counsel is an independent claim that must be sufficiently plead (E) holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim alleged to be cause for the procedural default of other claims is itself an independent claim subject to the procedural requirements of exhaustion
Output (English): holding that the novelty of a petitioners claim can constitute cause for a procedural default