FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 14, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 15683 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -001 47 -C V -D F -5 R I C H A R D R I C A R D O S L A T E R , P e titio n e r - A p p e llan t, v ersu s B R U C E C H A T M A N , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( S e pt e m be r14, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an dH U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R i c ha r d R i c a r do S l a t e r , aG e or gi apr i s one rpr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l w i thoutpr e j udi c e of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 pe t i t i on f or2

f a i l u r e t o e x h au s ts t a t e - c o u rtr e me d i e s . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. I n th is c a s e , th e r e is n o d is p u te th a t S la te rh a s f a ile d , in f

a c t, to e x h au s t h is st at e- courtre m edi es . N orm al l y, thi s f ai l ure w ou l d aut om at i ca l l y prohi bi ta f eder al courtfr om grant i ng habeas re l i ef . S ee 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(b)(1)(A ). H ow ever , an e x c e p tio n to th is g e n e r a l ru le ap p lie s w h e n e ith e r“th e r e is a n ab s e n c e o f a v a ilab le S t at e co rrect i v e p ro cess[] o r ci rcu m st an ces ex i stth atren d er su ch p ro cess in e f f e c tiv e to p r o te c t th e r ig h ts o f th e ap p lic a n t.” I d . a t § § 2 2 5 4 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( i) - ( ii) . B e c au s e S la te ra r g u e s th a t h is c a s e f its th e ab o v e e x c e p tio n , w e m u s t o u tlin e h is st at e-co u rtp ro ceed i n g s an dex am i n e w h eth er th e ex cep t i o n ap p l i es. I n 2 0 0 1 , S la te rw a s c o n v ic te din s ta te c o u rt f o r : ( 1 ) in te n t to d is tr ib u te m ar i j uana; and (2) dri vi ng w i th a suspended/re vo ked d ri ver’ s l i ce nse. H e w as s e nt e nc e d t o e i ghty e a r s ’ pr oba t i on. I n 2002, S l a t e rw a s c onvi c t e d i n s t a t e c ourtf or c oc a i ne tr a f

f i c ki ng w i thi n 1, 000 f

e e tof s c hool pr ope rty . O n M a y22, 2003, S l a t e r ’ s pr oba t i ona rys e nt e nc e w a s r e voke d ba s e d on hi s c onvi c t i on f orc oc a i ne tr a f f i c ki ng. S l a t e rf i l e d both as t a t e di r e c tappe a l a nd as t a t e habe a s pe t i t i on c ha l l e ngi ng h is p ro b atio n re v o ca ti o n . A s o f th e d ate o f th e d istrict co u rt’s d ism issa l o f S later’s § 2 25 4 p et i t i on , S l at er ’ s di re ctappeal had b ee n p endi ng for 16 m on ths. H ow ever , f o rr e a s o n s u n e x p la in e din th e r e c o r d , it a lle g e d lyto o kth e s ta te 1 4 m o n th s toSlater’s state ha beas petition has been stayed bec ause, under Ge orgia s tate law, a prisoner ’s 1 state habe as petition ordinarily must be stayed duringthe pendency of the dire ct appe al proc ess. See g enerally O.C.G.A. § 9-14- 42; Coll ins v. St ate, 591 S.E.2d 820, 821 (Ga . 2004). Thus, we f ocus on Slater’ s dire c t a

pp e al. 3 ap p o in t S la te rap p e lla te c o u n s e l. A lth o u g h w e h a v e s o m e q u e s tio n a s to w h yit w o u ldta k e 1 4 m o n th s to appo i ntcoun se l , the st at e c ou rt s are no w m ov i ng forw ar d w i th S l at er ’ s di re ct appeal . G i ven thatthe st at e c ou rt s are no w m ov i ng forw ar d w i th S l at er ’ s di re ct

1 appe a l , w e c a nnots a ytha t“ the r e i s a n abs e nc e of a va i l abl e S t a t e c orr e c t i ve pr oc e s s [ ] orc i r c um s t a nc e s e xi s ttha tr e nde rs uc h pr oc e s s i ne f f e c t i ve t o pr ot e c tthe r i ght s of the appl i c a nt . ” 28 U . S . C . §§ 2254( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) - ( i i ) . H ow e ve r , w e c aut i on a ga i ns ts uc h l ong de l a y s i n the appoi ntm e ntof c ouns e l . S e e D i xon v. F l or i da , 388 F . 2d 424, 425 ( 5 C i r . 1968) ( s t a t i ng tha t“ as t a t e of e xhaus t i on c a n be r e a c he d by th the l apse of t i m e and atsom e poi nti n t i m e e xh aust i on need no tbe further e x h au s te d ” ) . F o ra ll o f th e ab o v e r e a s o n s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r ly di sm i ss ed w i tho utprej ud i ce S l at er ’ s § 22 54 pet i t i on for f ai l ure t o exh austst at ecourtre m edi es . O nce S l at erhas e xh aust ed hi s s t at e- courtre m edi es (or an e xc e pt i on appl i e s ) , he m a yt i m e l yr e f i l e hi s § 2254 pe t i t i on. AF F I R ME D.