FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E ALS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT APR 18 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 05- 14528 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D
. C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3
- 0 0 4 6 7
- CV
- W H A
- SRW D E R R I C K L A K E I T H B R O W N , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t,
v ersu s R A L P H H O O K S , W a r d e n , T R O Y K I N G , A tto rn e y G e n e r a l o f

th e S ta te o f

A lab a m a , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ 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 i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A p r i l18, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

P et i t i on erD erri ck L akei th B row n, an A l abam a s t at e p riso n er proceedi ng pro
s e , ap p e a ls t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e o f h is p e titio n f

o ra w r it of habeas c orpu s, w hi ch he fi l ed pu rs uant t o 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 25 4. T he di stri ctcourt d is m is s e d B r o w n ’s p e titio n w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e in o r d e rto p e r m it h i m t o e x h a u s t h is
s t a t e c our tr e m e di e s i n c onne c t i on w i th hi s c l a i m of a c tua l i nnoc e nc e ba s e d on the
a f f id a v it o f G r e g o ry M . F e r g u s o n . W e g r a n te d B r o w n a c e r tif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility ( “C O A ” ) o n th e f

o llo w in g is s u e : [ w ] h e r e th e ap p e l l e e h a d r e s p o n d e d th a tt h e ap p e l l a n t ’ s 2 8 U
. S. C. § 2254 pe t i t i on w as t i m e - ba rr e d, w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by d i sm i ssi n g w i th o u tp rej u d i ce ap p el l an t ’ s p et i t i o n fo r fai l u re t o ex h au st hi s a vai l abl e s t at e c ou rtre m edi es w i th respectt o h i s c l ai m of ac tual i nn oce nc e ba s e d on a n a f f i da vi t of a s t a t e tr i a l w i tne s s w hen appe l l a nt ’ s unde r l y i ng § 2254 pe t i t i on c l a i m s w e r e e xha us t e d i n the st at e co u rt s? T he R e s ponde nt s c ont e nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by di s m i s s i ng the § 2254 p e titio n w ith o u t p r e

ju d i c e t o a llo w B r o w n to e x h a u s t th e a c tu a l- in n o c e n c e c la im base d o n the F er gu son aff i davi tand also urge us t o v ac at e a nd re m and the di stri ct
c our t ’ s or de r . T he R e s ponde nt s a r gue th at t h e c l a i m w a s notonl y une xha us t e d but
a l s o pr oc e dur a l l y ba rr e d -
- a n i s s ue notc ons i de r e d by the d i str i c tc our t . T hus , the R e s ponde nt s a s k us t o va c a t e a nd r e m a nd the di s m i s s a l w i th i ns truc t i o n s fo r t he d i str i c tc our tt o di s m i s s the pe t i t i on, i nc l udi ng the a c tua l
- i nnoc e nc e c l a i m ba s e d on th e G r e g o ry M . F e r g u s o n a f f id a v it, w ith p r e

ju d ic e .3

B ec ause the ac tual-in n o ce nce c l ai m w as procedural l y def aul t ed i n st at e c ou rt

- - a nd B r ow n the r e f

or e c a nnote xha us tthe c l a i m - - w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd the d i st r i c tc our t ’ s or de r . H ow e ve r , a s w e di s c us s be l ow , i tw oul d be pr e m a tur e f oru s,
a tthi s poi nt , t o i ns truc tthe di str i c tc our tt o di s m i s s B r ow n’ s § 2254 pe t i t i on
w i th p re j ud i ce , as the S t at e urges us t o d o. Inst ea d, w e r em and for further proceedi ng s on w hether on e of the narr ow ci rc um st ance s i n w hi ch a p ro ce d ural de f a ul tw i l l be e xc us e d appl i e s t o the a c tua l
- i nnoc e nc e c l a i m ba s e d on the F e r g u s o n a f

f id a v it. I. T he r e l e va ntf

a c t s a r e t h es e . O n O c t obe r31, 2000, B r ow n w a s c onvi c t e d of i nt e nt i ona l m u rd e ra nd s e nt e nc e d t o l i f e i m pr i s onm e nt . O n M a r c h 23, 2001, the A l aba m a C our tof

C r i m i nal A ppe a l s a f

f i r m e d hi s c onvi c t i on. B r ow n di d not pe t i t i on f

orc e r t i or a r i re vi e w i n the A l aba m a S upr e m e C our t , a nd hi s c onvi c t i on beca m e f

i nal on A pri l 10 , 20 01 , w hen th e C er ti fi ca t e of J ud gm enti ss ued. O ver
on e y ea r l at er , on June 27 , 20 02 , B row n’ s pet i t i on for post -c on vi ct i on re l i ef p u r s u a n t to R u le 3 2 o f

th e A lab a m a R u le s o f

C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e w a s f i le d . I n h is R u le 3 2 p e titio n , B r o w n c h a lle n g e d th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t h is
c onvi c t i on a nd a s s e r t e d, am ong othe rthi ngs , c l a i m s of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of tr i a l a nd appe l l a t e c ouns e l a nd va r i ous tr i a l e rr or s . H i s p et i t i on w a s de ni e d onThe Antiterrorism and Eff ective D eath Penalty

Act of 1996 ( “AED PA”), Pub. L . No. 1 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), g overns this appe al bec ause B rown’s motion was f iled after the AE DPA ’se nac tment.
4 A u g u st 8, 20 02 , and the A l abam a C ou rtof C ri m i nal A pp ea l s a ff i rm ed the deni al on J a nua ry 7, 2003. T he A l ab am a S upr e m e C our tde ni e d B r ow n’ s pe t i t i on f or
c e r t i or a r i r e vi e w on M a r c h 28, 2003. T here af t er , on A pri l 26 , 20 03 , B row n fi l ed the i nst antpet i t io n fo r federa l habeas re l i ef

pu rs uantt o 2 8 U .S .C . § 22 54
. In hi s pet i t i on , B row n ass ert ed
es se nt i al l y the sa m e c l ai m s that h e h ad in cl ud ed i n h i s R ul e 32 p et i t i on . In
re spon se t o B row n’ s § 22 54 pet i ti o n , the S t at e a rgued that , al tho ug h B row n h ad
e xh a us t e d the c l a i ms i n s t a t e c ou r t , the pe t i t i on s ho ul d b e di s mi s s e d w i th p r ej ud i ce b e c a u s e it w a s u n t i m e ly . I n s u p p o r t o f d is m is s a l b a s e d o n u n tim e lin e s s , th e S ta te not e d tha ta f

t e rB r ow n’ s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nce w er e a f f i r m e d on M a r c h 23, 2001, he di d n o t fi l e a t i m e l y appl i c a t i on f orr e he a r i ng ors e e k r e vi e w by the A l ab am a S upr e m e C our tbe f or e the C e r t i f

i c a t e of J udgm e nti s s ue d on A pr i l 10, 2 0 0 1 . T h e S ta te a ls o n o te d th a t m o r e th a n o n e y e a rlap s e d b e f o r e B r o w n f

ile d h is R ul e 32 p et i t i on . T hu s, ac cordi ng t o the S t at e, B row n’ s § 22 54 pet i t i on w as
un t i m el y bec ause (1) i tw as fi l ed af t erthe expi ra t i on of the A E D P A ’ s on e- ye ar 15

pe r i od of

l i m i t a t i on, 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2244( d) ( 1) , an d ( 2) B r ow n’ s R ul e 32 pe t i t i on, f i l e d a f t e re xpi r a t i on of

the l i m i t a t i on pe r i od, di d nott ol l tha tpe r i od. T he di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tB r ow n’ s pe t i t i on w a s unt i m e l y be c a us e ( 1) hi s c onvi c t i on be c a m e f i na l i n A pr i l 2001, a f

t e rhe f a i l e d t o s eek rel i ef from the A l aba m a S upr e m e C our t , w hi c h w oul d ha ve e nt i t l e d hi m t o fi l e a p e t i t i on f or
c e r t i or a r i w i th the U
. S
. S upr e m e C our t ; ( 2) h i s R ul e 32 m ot i on di d nott ol l the A E D P A ’s o n e - y e a rp e r io d o f lim i t a tio n s in c e it w a s f ile d 1 4 m o n th s a f

te rh is
conv i ct i on beca m e f

i nal ; an d (3 ) the A E D P A ’ s one-y ea r l i m i t at i on peri od expi re d pri or t o B row n’ s f

i l i ng of the i nst ant§ 2 25 4 p et i t i on on A pri l 26 , 20 03
. T he court ordered B row n t o sho w caus e w h y hi s pet i t i on shou l d n otbe di sm i ss ed as t i m eba rr e d. T he s how
- c a us e or de ri s s ue d on J une 16, 2003. O n Jul y 24, 20 03 , i n res po nse t o the sho w -cause order , B row n ass ert ed that dism i ss al of hi s pet i t i on w ou l d res ul ti n a fund am ent al m i sc arri age of j ust i ce be c a us e he ha d r e c e i ve d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l
. H e pr ovi de d no
e xpl a na t i on f

orhi s f a i l ur e t o c om pl y w i th the A E D P A ’ s one - year l i m i t a t i on pe r i od. O n Jul y 8, 20 04 , al m oston e y ea r a ft er h is i ni t i al re spon se t o the show -c ause order, B r ow n f i l ed a “ m o t i on f

ordi s pos i t i on a nd s t a tus a nd t o s uppl e m e ntthe r e c or d a nd f orj udgm e nto n the pl e a di ngs ” ( “ M ot i on” )
. B r ow n a tt a c he d t o the M ot i on the
a f f i da vi tof G r e gory M
. F e r gus on w ho ( 1) de t a i l e d the e ve nt s unde r l y i ng theRule 32.1(e) authorizes the filingof a statepostconviction petition in the cour t of 2 orig inal c onvic tio n o n th egroun d th at: Newly discovere d material fac ts ex ist which requirethat the conviction or sentence 6 m ur de r ; ( 2) a ve rr e d tha tB r ow n w a s a c tua l l y i n noc e ntof i nt e nt i ona l m ur de r ; a nd ( 3) s t a t e d tha tB r ow n h ad ac t e d i n s e l f
- de f e ns e w he n he s hotthe vi c t i m . F e r gus on f ur the rs t a t e d tha the ha d l i e d a tB r ow n’ s tr i a l be c a us e he w as a cl os e f r i e nd of the vi ct i m . In the M ot i on , B row n al so as se rt ed , b as ed on the new l y di sc ov er ed F e r g u s o n a f

f id a v it, th a t h e w a s a c tu a lly in n o c e n t. T o th e e x t e n tBr o w n s o u g h td i s p o s i t i o n , s t a tu s , o ra j u d g me n to n t he pl e a di ngs , the di s tr i c tc our ts truc k the M ot i on b ecaus e i tw a s f i l e d w i thoutl e a ve f r o m th e c o u r t . Ho we v e r , th e c o u r tg r a n t e d th e Mo t i o n t o th e e x t e n tth a tB r o wn
s oughtt o su p p l em e ntthe r e c or d. O n J ul y 12, 2004, the di s tr i c tc our tor de r e d the S ta te to r e s p o n d to B r o w n ’s c la im th a t th e n e w ly d is c o v e r e d F e r g u s o n a f f id a v it,
w hi c h w a s s i gne d M a y 25, 2004, e s t abl i s h ed t h at h e w a s a c tua l l y i nnoc e ntof the of f e ns e of c onvi c t i on. N ot abl y, i n it s re sp o nse, fi l ed on A ug ust2, 20 04 , the S t at e c on ce ded that B r o w n ’s a c tu a l- in n o c e n c e c l a i m w a s a n e w c la im th a t h a d n o t b e e n e x h a u s te d in
s ta te c o u r t, a n d th a t B r o w n h a d a n a v a i l a b l e s ta te r e m e d y s in c e th e a c tu a li nn ocence c l ai m coul d b e a ss ert ed pu rs u antt o R ul e 32. 1(e) of the A l abam a R ul es
o f C ri m i n al P ro ced u re. T h e S t at e u rg ed th e d i stri ct c o u r tei th er t o d i sm i ss 2be vac ated by the cour t, beca use: (1) The fac ts relied upon werenot known by the petitioner or thepetitioner' s counsel at th etim eof

trial or sentenc ingor

in timeto f

ile a po sttri al mo tio n p ur suant to Rule 24, or in time to be included in a ny previous collateral proce edingand could not have been disc overe d by any of those times through the exercise of rea sonable dilig ence ; (2) Thefac ts are not merely cumulative to other f

acts that were known; (3) Thefac ts do not merely amount to impeachment evidence ; (4 ) I f the fac ts had be e n kn own at the tim e of trial or of sentenc ing , the result probably would have be en different; and (5) Thefac ts establi s h th at the petitioner is innocent of the crime for which the petitioner was convicted or should not have rec eived the sentenc e that the petitioner rec eived. Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.1(e). 7 B r ow n’ s pe t i t i on w i thoutpr e j udi c e ort o s t a y t h e p ro cee di ngs i n or de rt o a l l ow B r o w n to e x h a u s t h is c la im
. In a R eportand R ec om m endat i on (R & R ), a m agi stra t e j ud ge foun d that F e r gus on’ s a f

f i da vi tw a s nota va i l ab l e t o B r ow n dur i ng hi s s t a t e pos t - c onvi c t i on p r o c e e d i n g s a n d th e r e f o r e h a d n o tb e e n p r e s e n t e d t o th e s t a t e c o u r t s f o r r e v i e w. T hus , t h e ma g i s tr a t e j u d g e r e c o mme n d e d th a tth e a c tu a l
- i n n o c e n c e c l a i m w a s not pr op e r l y e x h a u s t e d a n d th a tBr o w n ’ s § 2 2 5 4 p e t i t i o n s h o u l d b e d i s mi s s e d w i t hout p r e ju d ic e , s o a s to a f

f o r d h im th e o p p o r tu n ity to e x h a u s t th e a c tu a l- in n o c e n c e c la im in s ta te c o u r t.8

B r o w n o b

je c te d to th e R & R , a r g u in g th a t h e h a d n o t a s s e r te d a n e w a c tu a li nnoc e nc e c l a i m , butr a the rha d s ubm i tt ed n ew l y di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e i n s uppor tof th e c la im s h e lis te d in h is § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n ( a n d h a d p r e v io u s ly a s s e r te d in h is R u le 32 pet i t i on i n s t at e court ), i ncl ud i ng a chal l enge t o the suff i ci ency of th e e v id ence t o sup po rthi s c on vi ct i on , al l of w hi ch w er e e xh aust ed. T h e d istri ctcourt de t e r mi n e d th a te v e n i f Br o w n h a d e x h a u s t e d a n a c tu a l
- i n n o c e n c e c l a i m, th e one b a s e d o n F e r g u s o n ’s a f f id a v it w a s d if

f e r e n t b e c a u s e th e a f

f id a v it w a s n e w ly di sc ov er ed and had no t been pres ent ed t o the st at e court s. T he district co urt
o v er ru led B ro w n ’s o b

jectio n an d ad o p ted th e R & R , th er eb y d ism issin g B ro w n ’s p e titio n w ith o u t p r e

ju d ic e in o r d e r f

o r B r o w n to e x h a u s t h is a c tu a l- in n o c e n c e c la im ba s e d on F e r gus on’ s a f

f i da vi t . T hi s appe a l f

ol l ow e d. II
. W e r e vi e w de novo a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntorde ni a l of a habe a s c orpus pe t i t i on. S e e M cN ai r v. C a m pbe l l , 416 F
. 3d 1291, 1297 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , pe t i t i on f orc e r t . f i l e d, N o. 05- 8664 ( J a n. 10, 2006)
. “ T h e d i st r i c tc our t ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs
a r e r e vi e w e d f

orcl ear erro r, w hi l e m i xe d que s t i ons of l a w a nd f

a c ta r e r e vi e w e d de
no vo . ” I d. “ W hether apart i cul arcl ai m i s s ubj ec t [ ] to th e d o ctri ne of procedural d e f a u lt . . . is a m ix e d q u e s tio n o f f a c t a n d la w , s u b

je c t to d e n o v o r e v ie w .”9

H e nde r s on v. C a m pbe l l , 353 F
. 3d 880, 891 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons
o m itte d )
. U nde rthe A E D P A , a pe r s on i n s t a t e c u st o d y h as a one - y e a rpe r i od of lim ita tio n to f

i l e a p e titio n f

o ra w r it o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2244( d) ( 1) ( A )
. T he pe r i od be gi ns t o run f r om “ the da t e on w hi c h the j udgm e nt be c a m e f

i na l by the c onc l us i on of di r e c tr e vi e w orthe e xp i rat i on of the t i m e f

or
s eek i n g s uc h r e vi e w , ” or“ the da t e on w hi c h the f a c tua l pr e di c a t e of

the c l a i m or
c l a i ms p r e s e n t e d c o u l d h a v e b e e n d i s c o v e r e d th r o u g h th e e x e r c i s e of due di l i gence. ” 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2 24 4(d)(1)(A ), (D ).

H abea s pet i t i on er s general l y ca nn ot ra i se cl ai m s i n f ederal court i f thos e c l a i m s w e r e notf i r s te xha us t e d i n s t a t e c o u rt . In or de rt o be ex h au st ed , a fed eral cl ai m m u stb e fai rl y p r e s e n t ed t o th e st at e co u rt s. “ Iti s notsuff

i ci entm er el y tha t th e f eder al habeas pet i t i on erhas bee n th r o u g h t h e s t a t e c o u r ts . . . n o ris it s u f f ic ie n t th a t a ll th e f

a c ts n e c e s s a ry to s u p p o r t th e c la im w e r e b e f o r e th e s ta te c o u r ts o rth a t a s o m e w h a t s im ila rs ta te - la w c l a i m w a s m a d e .” R a th e r , in o r d e rto en su re th at st at e co u rt s h av e th e fi rst o p p o rtu n i ty t o h ear a ll c lai m s, f e d e r a l c o u r ts h a v e r e q u ir e d a s ta te p r is o n e rto p r e s e n t t h e s ta te c o u r ts w i th th e sam e cl ai m h e u rg es u p o n th e fed eral co u rt s. M cN ai r , 41 6 F. 3d a t13 02 ( c i t a t i on s omi tt e d)
. St a t e r e me di e s a r e no tc on s i dere d exhaust ed, even i f the pri or st at e proceedi ng s as se rt ed the sa m e cl aim , w henIn Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 3 a dopte d a s b indingpre ceden t all dec isi on s o f t hefo rm e r F if

th C irc uit ha nde d down p ri or

to c los e of business on September 30, 1981. 10 e nt i r e l y ne w factu al cl ai m s a r e m a de i n s uppor tof the habe a s pe t i t i on be f or e the court . H artv. E st el l e, 63 4 F
. 2d 98 7, 98 9 (5th C i r. U ni tA Ja n. 19 81 ) ( per c uri am ). 3 II I. T he di stri ctc our tc orr e c t l y c onc l ude d tha tthe f or e goi ng e xha us t i on
r e q u irem en t s w ere n o t m et as t o th e actu al -i n n o cen ce cl ai m b ased o n th e n e w ly di s c ove r e d F e r gus on a f f i da vi t . H ow e ve r , the c our tdi d not co n si d e rthe e f f e c tof F e r gus on’ s f

a i l ur e t o r a i s e the c l a i m i n a t i m e l y m a nne ri n s t at e c our t , de s pi t e the S t a t e ’ s c onc e s s i on, i n i t s A ugust 2 , 2 0 0 4 r e s pons e t o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s J ul y 12, 2 0 0 4 o r d e r , th a t B r o w n c o u ld f ile th e c la im , p u r s u a n tto R u le 3 2 .1 ( e ) . T h e S ta te
n o w a r g u e s th a t , a tth i s l a t e d a t e , th e c l a i m c a n no l o n g e rb e r a i s e d i n A l ab a ma courtand, there fore , B row n h as procedural l y def aul t ed the cl ai m . W e a gree . W h e n a p e titio n e rf

a ils t o p r o p e r ly e x h a u s t h is c la im s in s ta te c o u r t, a n d is b a rr e d f r o m r a is in g th e c la im s in s ta te c o u r t b y f ir m ly e s tab lis h e d a n d c o n s i s t e n tly
appl i e d pr oc e dur a l rul e s , s uc h c l a i m s a r e pr oc e dur a l l y de f a ul t e d. H e nde r s on, 353 F
. 3d a t891. “ P r oc e dur a l de f au l tw i l l be e xc us e d onl y i n tw o na rr ow
c ir c u m s ta n c e s . F ir s t, a p e titio n e rm a y o b ta in f e d e r a l r e v ie w o f

a p r o c e d u r a lly defaul t ed cl ai m i f he c an show bo th ‘ cause’ for the defaul tand actual ‘ prej ud i ce ’11

r e s u ltin g f

r o m th e d e f

a u lt.” I d . a t 8 9 2 . “S e c o n d , a f e d e r a l c o u rt m a y a ls o g r a n t a habe a s pe t i t i on on a pr oc e dur a l l y de f a ul t e d c l a i m , w i thout a s how i ng of c a us e or prej ud i ce , t o correc ta f un dam ent al m i sc arri ag e o f ju st i ce . A ‘ fund am ent al
m i sc arri age of j ust i ce ’ occurs i n an extra ordi nary ca se , w he re a const i tut i on al vi ol a t i on ha s r e s ul t e d i n the c onvi c t i on of s om e one w ho i s actua l l y i nnoc e nt . ” I d. (c i t at i on om i tt ed). H ere, th e d i stri ct co u rt co rrect l y co n cl u d ed th at B ro w n h ad n o t ex h au s te d h is
a c tu a l- in n o c e n c e c l a im b a s e d o n th e n e w ly d is c o v e r e d F e r g u s o n a f f id a v it. H ow ever , the co u rt er red b y di sm i ss i ng B row n’ s § 22 54 pet i t i on w i tho utprej ud i ce f orf a i l ur e t o e xha us ts t a t e r e m e di e s be c au se B ro w n w a s pr oc e dur a l l y ba rr e d f r om
as se rt i ng hi s c l ai m s i n st at e c ou rt , pu rs uantt o R ul e 3 2 .2 (c ) o f the A l abam a R ul es
o f C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e , w h ic h p r o v id e s , in p a r t: T he courtshal l no tent ert ai n a pet i t i on base d o n the grou nd s s peci fi ed in R u le 3 2
. 1 ( e ) u n le s s th e p e titio n is f ile d w ith in th e ap p lic ab le o n e - y e a rp e r io d s p e c if

ie d in th e f

ir s t s e n te n c e o f

th is s e c tio n , o rw ith in si x (6 ) m o nths af

t erthe di sc ov ery of the new l y di sc ov er ed m at er i al f a c t s , w hi c he ve ri s l a t e r ; pr ovi de d, how e v er, tha tthe one - y e a rpe r i od d u r in g w h ic h a p e titio n m a y b e b r o u g h t s h a ll in n o c a s e b e d e e m e d to h a v e b e g u n to ru n b e f o r e th e e f

f e c tiv e d a te o f

th e p r e c u r s o ro f

th is rul e , i
. e . , A pr i l 1, 1987. A l a. R
. C ri m . P
. 32
. 2(c) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). T he F e r gus on a f

f i da vi tw a s da t e d M a y 25, 2004, a nd B r ow n f i l e d i ti n the di s tr i c tc our ton J ul y 8, 2004. G i vi ng B r ow n the ben e f i tof the l a t e rda t e , J ul y 8,12

20 04 , for purpo se s of c om pu t i ng the d ate o f “ di sc ov ery” un der R ul e 32. 2(c) , B r o w n h a d u n til J a n u a ry 8 , 2 0 0 5 to f ile a R u le 3 2 .1 ( e ) p e titio n b a s e d o n th e n e w ly di sc ov er ed evi dence. In d ee d , as ea rl y a s A ug ust2, 20 04 , the S t at e i nform ed B r ow n of t h e vi abi l i ty of hi s a c tua l
- i nnoc e nc e c l a i m , i f a s s e r t e d i n a R ul e 32 pet i t i on . In re spon se , B row n n oton l y di d n otfi l e s uch a pet i t i on bu ti n fac t obj e c t e d t o th e R& R’ s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f th e c l a i m a s n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d
. I ti s t oo la te f o rh im to r e tu rn to s ta te c o u r t n o w , b e c a u s e R u le 3 2 .2 ( c ) ’s s i x - m o n th l i mi t a t i o n s p e r i o d h a s e x p i r e d a n d h e i s b a rr e d f r o m r a i s i n g t he c l a i m. A cc ordi ng l y, the cl ai m i s proce du ra l l y def aul t ed for purp o se s of fe dera l habeas
r e vi e w . Se e H e n d e r s o n , 3 5 3 F. 3 d a t 8 9 1 ( h o l d i n g th a t w h e r e h ab e a s p e t i t i o n e r w ho
a s s e r ts u n e x h a u s te d c la im s is “b a rr e d b y f ir m ly e s tab lis h e d a n d c o n s is te n tly
appl i e d pr oc e dur a l rul e s f r om r a i s i ng the m , the c l a i m s a r e pr oc e dur a l l y de f au l t e d” (f oo tno t e om i tt ed))
. I V. W e v a c a te th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n a n d r e m a n d f o r t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t to
c onduc tf

u rt he rpr oc e e di ngs on the pr oc e dur a l l y de f a ul t e d c l a i m ba s e d on the F e r g u s o n a f

f i d a v i t , i n c l u d i n g a d e t e r m i n a t i o n a s t o wh e th e re i th e ro f th e two

“ na rr ow c i r c um s t a nc e s ” app l i es t o e xc us e the pr oc e dur a l de f a ul t . C f
. H e nde r s on,13

3 5 3 F .3 d a t 8 9 2 ( d is c u s s in g “n a rr o w c ir c u m s ta n c e s ” in w h ic h p r o c e d u r a l d e f a u lt
m i gh tbe excused). V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.