NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 10 a0198n .06 No . 05- 6669 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
T HOMAS D. SMITH, Peti ti oner-A ppel lan t,
v. JAC K M OR GAN , W arden, Res pondent -A ppel lee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE U NITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COUR T FOR T HE MI DD LE D ISTRI CT O F TENN ESSEE

Before: DAUGHT REY, C OLE , and GIBBO NS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIA M. Tho ma s D. Smith, a Te nne ssee sta te inm ate , app eals the district
cour t’ s d is mis sal of his petiti on for a w ri t of habeas co rp us filed pursuantto the p ro v is ion s of 28 U.S.C. § 2 2 5 4

. B e fo re this court, Sm ith alleges tha t the district judge erred in
conc lud ing t h a t h e h a d fail ed to ex haustthe sta te- cour t remedie s a v ail abl e to him to chal len g e the propor

ti onal ity and the leg ali ty

of the 60- y ear

pr is on s entenc e i mposed upon him for pos ses si ng , w it hin 1000 feet of a sc hool , more tha n 0.5 g ra ms of c ra ck co cai ne
w it h the int ent to sel l the cont ro ll ed subs tanc e. W e ag re e that Smit h adeq uatel y present ed his propor

ti onal ity ch all eng e i n s tate cour t and, there fore, find it ne ces sar y to re v erse the dis tr ict c our

t’ s j udg ment as to that is sue and re mand the matte r for c onsi derati on of the meri t s o f t h e p ro p o rt i o n a l i t y c l a i m. W e fu rt h e r c o n c l u d e , h o w e v e r , t h a t S mi t h fail ed to “fairly presen t” a fede ral co nstitu tiona l issue t o the st ate post-con v iction cou rt reg arding hisNo. 05-6669

Smith v. Morgan

- 2 - challen ge to the legality of his sent ence “unde r Ten nesse e law .” C onse quently, w e af f irm tha t portion of

the district cou rt’s judgmen t dismissing the p e t itione r’s i llegal-senten ce c l ai m.
FACTUA L A ND PROCEDUR A L BACKGROUND
Thomas Smi th w as ar re ste d i n Spr ing field , Tenness ee, w hil e si tti ng i n a c ar par ked at a housi ng project loc ated w it hin 1,00 0 feet of a l ocal el ementar y sc hool

. At t hat t ime, he pos ses sed 1.4 g ra ms of crack co cai ne th at he admi tted he hope d to sel l in order to pay his uti litybi ll s. Pu rs uant to t he prov is ion s o f Tennessee’ s D ru g -F re e Sc hool Z one Act, Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 17- 432, the p ro sec uti on fil ed not ic e of i ts int ent t o s eek the enhanc ed puni shmental low ed unde r the s tate leg is lat ion

. At t he c oncl usi on of the peti ti oner ’s tr ial , the j ur y found Smi th g uil ty

of poss ess ion
w ith inte nt to sell. The n, as no ted bythe T enn essee Court of Cri min al App eals: [T]he D ru g -F re e Sc hool Z one Act enh anced the cl ass B felony of fense to a cl ass A fel ony

for p ur poses of sent encin g. Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 17- 417( a) (4 ), ( c) (1 ) (1 996) ; Tenn. Co de Ann. § 39- 17- 432( b) . Addi ti onal ly , t he Actreq uired [S mith ] t o s er v e the min imum s entenc e w it hin hi s a ppropr iat e ra ng e pri o r

t o t h e o p e ra t i o n o f s e n t e n c e re d u c t i o n c re d i t s o r e l i g i b i l i t y

for pa ro l e o r e a r l y re l e a s e d u e t o o v e r c ro w d i n g . Te n n . C o d e A n n . § 39- 17- 432 (c)- (e). The State estab lished a t the sente ncing hea ring tha t [Sm ith’s] cr imi nal record i ncl uded s ix cl ass C fe lo n y , dr ug -rela ted o ff enses , and one cl ass B felo ny , drug -rela ted off ense. Acc ordin g ly , the tri al cour t s entenc ed t h e a p p e ll a n ta s a ca re e r o f fe n d e r w h o h a d co m m it t e d a cl a s s A fe lo n y, Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 35- 108( c) ( 1997) , Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 40 -3 5- 112( c) (1 ) (1 997) , i mposi ng a . . . day -for-d a y t e rm o f si xty y ears i ncarcerati on i n the Tenness ee D epar

tment of Cor re cti on.No. 05-6669

Smith v. Morgan

Ev en the State of Tennessee, in its respo nse brief, unde rstood that S m ith m eant to refer, no t to the 1 Elev enth Am endm ent to the United State s Con stitution, but to “U .S. C onst. amend. VI I I ; U .S. C onst. am end. XI V.”

- 3 - State v . Sm it h , 48 S. W .3d 159 , 162 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 20 00).
W ith the assistan ce of

coun sel, Sm ith f iled a direct ap pea l to the T enn essee Court of Cr imi nal Appea ls , c hal len g ing onl y the cons ti tuti onal ity

of T enn. Code Ann. § 39-17 -4 32, the D ru g -F re e Sc hool Z one Act. In maki ng thatch all eng e, t he pet it ion er arg ued, in par

t:
The in tent of Tenn. C ode An n. sec . 3 9 -1 7- 432 w as not t o hav e l aw e n fo rce m e n t p e rso n n e l lu re un su sp e ct in g de fe n d a n ts in to a “h id d e n rin g” w hic h c hang es cl ass B fel oni es to c las s A feloni es for day -for-d ay se rv ic e. W hil e dr ug sa les are a high p ri or ity i ss ue for pol ic e, mak ing the cr ime of hav ing 9- 10 rock s o f

crac k c ocai ne amountto a 15 y ear “ flat” se ntenc e – bestca se sc enar io; or

i n M r. Smith’ s cas e, 60 yea rs , is in vi ola ti on of the X Ith Am e ndment, Ar

t. I s ec. 13 o f the Tennes see Con sti tuti on and Furm an v. 1 Geo rgia , 408 U .S. 238 ( 1972) as cr uel and unusu al p uni shmentfar ex ceedi ng the cr ime. ( See , State v . Bl anton , 9 7 5 S. W .2d 2 69, 2 86 ( Tenn. 1998) .)
In respon se, the sta te re cog niz ed that the Tenness ee cour ts and the Uni ted S tates Supreme C our

t ut il iz ed th e s ame ev alu ati v e tes t i n a d d re ssing ch all eng es to t he p ro p o rt io n a lit y of

crim in a l se n te n ce s. Citi n g Sta te v. Harris , 844 S.W .2d 601, 603 ( Tenn. 1992) , for that proposi ti on, t he s tate noted in it s b ri ef to the T ennes see Cou rtof Cr imi nal App eals:
Ini ti all y , t he s entenc e mustbe c ompared to the cr im e c o m m itted. Id. “Unless this thresh old co mp arison lea ds to an inferen ce of g ross disprop ortion ality, the inquiry end s – the sent ence is const itution al.” Id. The Court in s tructe d tha t if an inferen ce arises, th e an alysi s requires aNo. 05-6669

Smith v. Morgan

- 4 - compar is on of the sent ences i mposed on ot h e r cri minal s i n the sa me and other j ur is dicti ons.
The st ate a ls o arg ued that the Act ’s enhanc ement prov is ion s w ere s impl y thatand not, as Smit h arg ued, another su bst anti v e offense that w as appl ied t o hi s s it uati on w it hout the
nece ssaryproced ural and constitu tiona l sa feguards. The interm edia te sta te cou rt
concu rred w ith the p rosecu tion, co nclud ing th at the Drug-Free Scho ol Zone Act is clearly an “en han cem entstatu te,” Sm it h , 48 S.W .3d a t 167 , and thatSmi th’ s s e n te n ce d id not
ra is e “ an i nferenc e of gro ss dispropor ti onal ity ev en th oug h the Ac t precl udes re duct ion credits, pa role, or early release due to overcrow ding.” Id. at 173.
Sm ith ap plied to the T e n n e s see Su prem e Court for perm ission to ap pea l, again chal len g ing the v ali dity

of Tenn. C ode Ann. § 39-17- 432 “under both the Stat e and federal
co n st it u ti o n s. ” T h e co u rt d e n ie d th e a p p lic a ti o n , h o wever, an d Sm it h , t h e n ac ti n g pro se , t i me l y p e t i t i o n e d t h e s t a t e t r i a l c o u rtfo r p o s t
- c o n v i c t i o n re l i e f.
In hi s p ost -c onv icti on pet it ion , Smi th rais ed numerous is sues , inc lud ing a cl aim that the t ri al jud g e fail ed to reduce eac h w ord of the jur y i nst ru cti ons to w ri ti ng , that t ri al couns el
w as ine ff ect iv e i n fail ing to ra is e i n the moti on for new tr ial a c lai m of ins uff ic ien t ev ide nce, tha t trial counse l w as inef fective in failing to f ile a m otion to supp ress a search o f Smith ’s p e rs o n , t h a t S mi t h ’ s s e n t e n c e w a s d i s p ro p o rt i o n a t e t o c o mp a ra b l e c r i me s , a n d t h a tthe pet itione r’s senten ce w as illegal because o f t he m ultiple e nha ncem ent s add ed to the ba se puni shment

. After a hear ing , the court iss ued a br ief order , granti ng Smith a new tr ial onNo. 05-6669

Smith v. Morgan

- 5 - the basis of

the trial judge’s “fa il[ure] to provide t he jury with a ll jury charges in w ritten form and fail[ure] to f ully

ex plain th e law

pursua nt to a jury

q uest ion request. ”
The st ate a ppeal ed the tri al cour t’ s g ra nt of pos t- conv ic ti on reli ef to the C our t of Cr imi nal Appea ls

. That c our t rev ersed the o rd er , hol din g th a t th e j ur y ch arg e i ss ue had been “ w aiv ed by

the failu re to pursue the o bje cti on at t ri al and preser v e the i ss ue for the direct ap pea l.” Sm it

h v . St ate , N o. M 2002- 02181- CC A- R3- CD , 200 3 W L 21946 727, at * 4 (Tenn. C ri m. App. Aug . 12, 2003)

. Sti ll ac ti ng p ro se , Smi th foll ow ed th at i nter mediat e cour t deci si on w it h another

appli cat ion for p er mis si on to appeal to the s tate supreme co urt,
a n a p p lic a ti o n a lle gin g t h a t th e i n te rm e d ia te a p p e lla te c o u rth a d “ e rr[ e d ] in o vert u rn in g a d e cis io n of

th e T ria l Co u rtth a t fo u n d preju d ici a l co n st it u ti o n a l e rro r in th e ori gin a l tr ia l ju d ge not w ri ti ng dow n j ur

y i nst ru cti ons. ” The Tenness ee Sup re me C our t den ied per mis si on to appeal , effecti v ely

forec los ing the poss ibi li ty of Smith’ s sec ur ing rel ief f ro m the Tennes see state courts.
Smit h next fil ed a ti mely peti ti on for a w ri t of habeas cor pus in federal co urt. “[ L]i berall y cons tr uin g the peti ti on and the Me moran dum of La w in suppo rt of the pet it ion , the Court gl ean [ed ] six c la im s for relief .” Sm it h v . Mor gan , N o . 3 : 0 4
- 0 7 7 5 , 2 0 0 5 WL 2290998, at *1 (M .D . Tenn. Sept. 20, 2005)

. The dis tr ic t c our t i denti fied th ose cl aims as follows: (1 ) the D ru g -F re e S ch o o l Zone Ac t, codi fied as Tenn. C ode An n. § 39- 17- 432, is unc onst it uti onal ly v ag ue, o v er broad, and ex ces si v e i n puni shment ;No. 05-6669

Smith v. Morgan

- 6 - (2 ) the t ri al jud g e er re d w hen he orall y g a ve the j ur

y a s uppl emental in st ru ct io n bu t n e gle ct e d to red u ce th e in st ru ct io n to w rit in g; ( 3) th e pe ti ti on er w as de ni ed th e effecti v e as s i s ta nc e of c ou ns el w hen his atto rneys failed to prese rv e for app ellate rev iew a sup p le m e n tal jury ins tr uct ion i ss ue; (4 ) the p eti ti oner ’s se ntenc e i s d is propor ti onate to other

m ore seri ous cr imes such a s child mo lestat ion an d seco nd d egree mu rder; (5 ) the p eti ti oner

w as il leg all y

se ntenc ed unde r Tenness ee l aw ; and (6) the pe titione r w as de nied the ef fective a s s ist ance of

coun sel w hen his at to r ne y fai l ed t o fi l e a mo ti on t o s up pres s t he d r ug s fou nd o n hi m.
Id. ( ci tati ons and footnot es omit ted)

. Ev entual ly , t he di str ict j udg e g ra nted the s tate’ s moti on to dis mis s the peti ti on. In doin g so, the court held tha t claims 1, 3, and 6 had bee n f ully adjud icated bythe sta te cou rt and thatthe de cision of the higheststate court to exam ine th e ma tter w as “neith er contra ry to no r an unrea sona ble app lication of fede ral law .” Id. at *4. The c our t furt her co ncl uded that cl aim 2 inv olv ed only a q uest ion of sta te l aw and thus w as not c og niz abl e i n a federal habeas proceed ing

. See id. at *2. Fi nal ly , the dis tr ic t j udg e deni ed Smi th ha beas re li ef on g ro unds 4 and 5 bec ause “t hese is sues w ere nev er offered to the st ate c our ts at an y l ev el for c onsi derati on” and w ere, t herefore, not e x haust ed i n the st ate s y ste m. Id. at 3. Addi ti onal ly , ac cordin g to the d is tr ic t c our t, the p eti ti oner

fail e d t o establ is h c ause and preju dic e for suc h failu re to present the cl aims at the appropr iat e ti me to th e proper tr ibu nal s. See id.No. 05-6669

Smith v. Morgan

- 7 - Again proce edin g w ithou t the assistan ce of legal counsel, th e pet i ti on er f iled a no tice of appeal thatthis court“cons tr ued as a re q uestfor a cer ti ficat e of appeal abi li ty

pursuant to F ed. R . Ap p. P . 22( b)

. The cer ti ficat e nec ess ar

y to proceed w it h an appeal w as g ra nted onl y as to is sues 4 an d 5 conc er nin g “ the p ro por ti onal ity and leg ali ty

arg uments reg ardin g his se ntenc es. ” W e als o g ra nted Smit h’s req uestfor l eav e to proceed in form a pa upe ris and app oin ted l eg al couns el to as si st in thi s a ppeal

. DISC US SION
Pur s u a n t t o t h e p ro v i s i o n s o f 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 4 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , a p e t i t i o n fo r a w ri t of habeas co rp us maynot be g ra nted unl ess “ the a ppl ic ant h as ex hausted t he remedie s av ail abl e i n the co urts of the St ate.” The respon dent maint ain s that suc h ex haust ion of
re medies has not occ ur re d here bec ause, as cl aimed b y t h e di str ict c our t, the i ss ues conc er nin g the propor

ti onal ity and leg ali ty

of Smi th’ s s entenc e “ w ere never offered to the state courts at an y

lev el for conside ration .” Sm it h v . Mor gan , 200 5 W L 2 2 9 0 9 9 8 , at *3 (e mphasi s a dded)

. This as ser ti on i s s impl y

not suppo rt ed by

the re cord.
Propo rt io nal it y o f Sen te nce Throug hout the his tor

y of t his li ti g ati on, Smit h has cont ended that the 6 0- y ear pr is on ter m impos ed upon hi m w as so dis propor ti onate to the cr ime he c ommitt ed and to t he puni shment s rela ted t o oth er , more s er iou s cr imes that hi s s entenc e v iol ated the federal
cons ti tuti onal prohi bit ion ag ain st cr uel and unusu al puni shment s. In his di re ct appeal , forNo. 05-6669

Smith v. Morgan

- 8 - ex ample, Smit h chal len g ed the cons ti tuti onal ity of t hat sent ence, all eg ing that it w as ex ces si v e and that itco nst it uted “c ru el and unu sual punish ment far ex ceedi ng the cr ime. ” Lik ew is e, i n hi s p ost -c onv icti on pet it ion , Smi th al leg ed th at t he s entenc e w as “dispr o p ortion ate in comp arative cri me s.” Fi nally, i n his pro se habeas co rp us peti ti on, Sm ith again highlighted, a lbeit i nartf ully , the fact that he received a mo re severe senten ce than w oul d hav e s ome ch il d mo le st e rs, sec ond- deg re e murderers, or i ndi v idu als w ho actu ally sold crack cocaine to schoo l children mo re than 1 000 f eetf rom sch ool ground s.
Nev erthel ess , t he sta te makes three arg uments to suppo rt it s cont enti on th at S mith faile d to ex hausthi s s tate- cour t remedie s o n thi s i ss ue. Fi rs t, after poi nti ng out that “s tate pr is oners mus t gi v e the state cour ts one f ull oppor

tuni ty to re sol v e any

co nst it uti onal i ss ues by i nv oki ng one co m p le te round of the S tate’ s e sta bli shed appel lat e rev iew proces s,” O’ Sul li van v. Boer

ck el , 526 U .S. 838, 845 (1999) , the s tate cont ends that Smit h fail ed to abid e by this ma nda te w hen he did not specif ically include the prop ortion ality issue i n his app lication for perm ission to ap pea l to the T enn essee Supre me Co u rt o n d irect app eal. Acc ordin g to the sta te, Tenness ee’ s “c re ati on of a dis creti onar y re v iew sy ste m does not,
w ithou t mo re, ma ke revi ew in the [Te nne ssee] S upre me Co urt una v ailable [ to Sm ith].” Id. at 84 8.
How ev er , R ule 39 o f Rul es of the Sup re me Cou rt of t he Stat e of Tennessee st ates unambi g uousl y , i n par

t:No. 05-6669

Smith v. Morgan

- 9 - In al l appeal s from cr imi nal co nv ic ti ons or pos t- conv ic ti on reli ef matters from and after Jul y 1, 1967, a li ti g ant shal l not be re q uired to peti ti on for re hear ing or to file an appl ic ati on for per mis si on to appeal to the S upreme C our t of T enn essee followi ng an adverse decision of t he Cou rt of

Cri min al App eals in order to b e d e e m ed to hav e ex haust ed al l av ail abl e s tate re medies re specti ng a c lai m of error . Rat her , w hen t he clai m has been present ed to the C o u rt o f C r i mi n a l A p p e a l s o r t h e S u p re me C o u rt , a n d re l i e f has been deni ed , t h e l i t i g a n ts h a l l b e d e e me d t o h a v e e x h a u s t e d a l l a v a i l a b l e s tate rem ed i es a v ai l ab l e for

t ha t c l ai m.
As w e not ed i n Adam s v . Holl and , 330 F.3d 398 , 402 (6th Cir. 2003 ), althou gh such a rule doe s not “co m p le t e ly re m ove[ ] state su prem e cou rt rev iew as an op tion for litig ant s,” it does “e sta bli sh that Supreme C our t rev iew i s no long er

part of the n or mal course of rev iew for criminal ap pea ls, and is not nece ssaryfor exhaustion o f ‘a ll available sta te rem edie s.’” “[ W ]hen re medies are tak en out si de of the nor mal cr imi nal rev iew proces s, thos e remedie s become ‘extraord in a ry:’ techni cal ly av ail abl e to the l it ig ant b ut no t req uired to be exhauste d.” Id . a t 4 0 3 (cit in g O’ Sul li van , 526 U.S. at 84 4).
Th e h o l d i n g o f A da ms

also promotes a pr inc ipl e deemed ess enti al to t he O’ Sul li van ru li ng : c omity

betw een t he s tate and feder a l gover nments

. A da ms not onl y req uires the federal co urts to en sure tha t t he s tate courts hav e the first oppor tuni ty to re v iew

and
ev alu ate l eg al cl aims that mig ht under mine a sta te cr imi nal conv ic ti on, but a ls o mandat es tha t the fede ral courts respe ct the duly-promu lgated r ule of the T enn essee Supre me Court that re cog niz es the l aw and pol icy -mak ing functi on of thatco urt and the cour t’ s d esi re not to be enta ng led in the busi ness of s impl e er ro r cor re cti on. Mo re ov er , A da ms co ntrols the q uest ion i n thi s ci rc uit , and w e are notat li ber ty to dis re g ard i ts hol din g . See, e.g. , UnitedNo. 05-6669

Smith v. Morgan

- 10 - St a tes v. Ki rchhof , 5 0 5 F

. 3 d 4 0 9 , 4 1 4 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( o n e p a n e l o f t h i s c o u rt ma ynot
ov er ru le the d eci si on of anoth er panel abs ent c ontradi cto ry , i nter v eni ng r uli ng s f ro m the Sup reme Court or en banc rev iew ). The resp ondent’ s a ss erti on th at S mith fail ed to exhaust h is state-cou rt remed ies by choo sing not to see kp e rm ission to ap pea l his sent enci ng i ss ue to the Tenness ee Sup re me C our t i s t hus patent ly

w it hout meri t.
Per haps re cog niz ing the lac k o f prec edenti al suppo rtfor i ts ini ti al ex haust ion argume nt, the st ate n ext con ten ds tha t Sm ith’s propo rtiona lity claim ha s bee n proce dura lly defaulted becau se the peti ti oner did not ra is e that is sue dur ing the post -c onv ic ti o n rel ief p ro cess before e it her

the Tenness ee C our t of C ri minal Appea ls or the Tenness ee Supreme C our

t. Onc e ag ain , how ev er , w e note that our deci si on i n A da ms abs olv es Smit h from any req uirement t o rais e the i ss ue i n an a p p lic a tion for per mis si on to appeal to the sta te s upreme co urt. The sta te’ s ass erti ons re g ardin g the peti ti oner ’s failu re to presentthe post -conviction prop ortion ality argume nt to the Court of Cr imina l App eals are, more over, eq ual ly i ll -c oncei v ed.
In his pr o s e post -c onv icti on peti ti on and acc ompany ing memorand um of l aw , Smi th all eg ed numerous er ro rs i n the co nductand re sul ts of his tri al. In a w ri tten order , t he s tate tr ial co urt j udg e i ndi cat ed th at he co nsi dered “ the p eti ti on w ell -founded, ” alt houg h he g ra nted re li ef on ly “o n the is sue that the o ri g ina l Tri al Judg e fail ed to prov ide the jur y w it h all jur y charg es in w ri tten form and faile d to fully ex pla in the l aw

pursuantto a j ur

y q uest ion
re q uest .” As a re sul t, the tri al cour t ov ertur ned Smi th’ s c onv ic ti on out ri g ht an d g ra nted theNo. 05-6669

Smith v. Morgan

- 11 - peti ti oner

a ne w tr ial

. Beca use the g ra nt of rel ief w as not c ondi ti onal , Smi th’ s c onv icti on and hi s p ri son sent ence became, at lea st for a shor t ti me, nul l and v oid

. As a resul t, Smit h
w o u ld h a ve had no need t o appea l the p ro pr iety of that sent ence to t he appe ll ate c our t. Th e s t a t e d i d c h a l l e n g e t h e j u r y - c h a rg e d e t e r mi n a t i o n , h o w e v e r , a n d t h a ts o l e i ss ue became the focus of

the appeal

. Smit h’s dec is ion not to s eek an adv is or y opi nio n from t he T enn essee courts thu s cann ot be conside red the equiv alen t of a failure to e x hau st
av ail abl e s tate re medies

. Fi nal ly , t he respon dent arg ues that Smit h did not rai se the ident ic al propor ti onal ity arg uments on d irectappeal and w hen s eeki ng a w ri t of habeas co rp us. Sp eci fical ly , t he
re spond ent p oin ts out t hat the petit ion er ’s directappeal arg ument w as focused upon t he all eg ati on th at t he 60- y ear , day -for-d ay puni shment w as “d is propor ti onate to his offense. ” In th e ha bea s procee dings, on th e oth er han d, Sm ith focuse d “on th e severity of his sent ence as compared w it h that impos ed for other cr imes in Tenness ee.” Al thoug h the respo nde nt is te chnica lly correct in this assertion , w hatthe argum entfails to recogniz e is that thes e iterati ons are merel y separate component s of a sing le anal yti cal f ra mew or k. In Sole m v. Helm , 463 U.S. 277, 291- 92 (1983) , t he U nit ed St ates Supreme C our t ex pla ine d tha t a rev iew ing court’s prop ortion ality ana ly sis should be guided bythree o bjective facto rs: “( i) the g ra v ity of t he offense and t he harshnes s o f the penal ty ; ( ii ) the s entenc es impos ed on ot her cr imi nal s [ commi tti ng othe r cr imes ] i n the sa me juri sdi cti on; and ( ii i) the sent ences impos ed for commi ss ion of the s ame cr ime in other j ur is dicti ons. ”No. 05-6669

Smith v. Morgan

As we r ece ntly

observe d, “In the context of determining‘cle arly establis h ed’ law for 2 purposes of 28 U. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 4(d)( 1), the SupremeCourt has . . . focuse d upon Justice Ke nnedy ’s opinion in Ha rm e lin .” United States v. J ones , 5 6 9 F. 3 d

5 6 9 , 5 7 3 n . 1 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g Lockye r v. Andrade , 538 U.S. 63, 73 (2003)).

- 12 - Th e t r i p a rt i t e a n a l y s i s o f Sole mv. Helm has, ov er the y ears, been t ra nsformed int o
w hat amounts to a si ng le- factor anal y si s. In his conc ur ri ng opi nio n i n Har m eli n v. M ichig an , 501 U .S. 957, 1001 (1 991) , Jus ti ce Kennedy re emphasi z ed that “[ t]he Ei g hth A mendment d o e s not req uire s tr ict propor ti onal ity betw een c ri me and s entenc e.” I nst ead, the 2
cons ti tuti onal g uarantee “for bid s o nly extreme se ntenc es that are ‘ g ro s s l y d i s p ro p orti onate’ to th e crime. ” Id. Des pit e that apparent emphasi s on onl y the firs t of the three Sole mv. Helmcr it er ia, how ev er , J ust ic e Kenn edy co nti n u e d to ex pla in that the i ntra- jur is dicti onal and int er-j ur is dicti onal anal y ses cal led for in the sec ond and thi rd factors of the Helmtest hav e notbeen total ly

abando ned. R a th e r, tho se inq uir ies sh oul d now be c onsi dered “a ppropr iat e onl y

i n the rare c ase in w hic h a threshol d compari son of the cr ime commi tted and the sen ten ce imp osed leads to an inferen ce of gross disprop ortion ality.” Id. at 1005.
H e n c e , re g a rd l e s s o f w h e t h e r w e fo c u s u p o n t h e ea r l i e r p ro n o u n c e me n t s o f Helm or t he later interp retat iv e gloss pla ced on tha t decision by Justice Ke nne dy’s concu rrence in Harm elin , Smi th’ s f ra ming of the is sues rai sed in st ate cour t and in f ederal cour

t di d not
re sul t i n the present ati on of tw o s eparate c lai ms. Ins tead, the peti ti oner ’s l a n gua ge choi ces si mply

hi g hli g hted different aspects of the anal y si s n eces sar y to prov ide a com preh ensive rev iew of Smith ’s Eig hth Ame ndm entclaim. Beca use th e s am e ba sic const itution al claim w as prese nte d bot h during t he sta te-cou rt procee dings and in Smith ’sNo. 05-6669

Smith v. Morgan

- 13 - hab eas co rpus pe tition, the pe titione r has, in fact, e x hau sted the sta te rem edie s av ailable to ad dress his con stitutio nal issue s. Leg alit y o f Sen te nce Un der

T enn essee L aw
In hi s h abeas co rp us peti ti on and memorand um of law , Smith als o contended that the s tate tr ial co urt er ro n e o u sl y enhanc ed hi s s entenc e by ch ang ing the cl ass ific ati on of the o f f e n se f ro m a Cl ass B fel ony to a C las s A

felony and by then al so impos ing ca re er offender i mpediment s u pon hi m. The d is tr ic t c our t found, and the state now arg ues, that thi s c lai m w as als o procedu ra ll y default ed for failu re to ex haustal l av ail a ble st ate
reme dies. In p articular, th e respo nde nt com plains b o t h t h a tS m ith did no t presen t this issue du ring the state ’s post-con v iction ap pea l to the T enn essee Court of Crimin al App eals and t hat t he pet it ion er

ci ted no f ederal cas e l aw or federal co nst it uti onal prov is ion s i n the post -conviction petitio n prese nting his claim, thu s failing to prese nt fairly the issue at every le vel o f th e pro ce e d in gs . As discusse d previously , Sm ith ha d no nee d to see k a n interm edia te app ellate court pronounc ement on hi s s entenc e dur ing the post -c onv ic ti on phas e of thi s l it ig ati on. The tr ial judge ha d p rev iously grant ed Sm ith the post-con v iction relief he sou ght – rev ersal of his
conv icti on and a remand for a new tr ial

. As a re sul t, no sent ence, l eg it imat e or othe rw is e,
w as tec hni cal ly

i n forc e at that ti me and subj ect to chal len g e. Mo re ov er , bec ause Rul e 39 of the R ule s o f the Supreme C our t of the Stat e o f

T e n n e ss e e does not re q uire an appl ic ati on for per mis si on to appeal to the sta te’ s hig hest tr ibu nal in order to ex haustst ateNo. 05-6669

Smith v. Morgan

- 14 - re medies , see A da ms , 330 F.3d at 402 -03, the state cann ot legitimat ely argue tha t the lack of mention of th is sentenc ing i ss ue i n appel lat e fil ing s a lon e forec los es federal habeas
c o r p u s re l i e f.
The peti ti oner

w as sti ll req uired, h ow ev er , t o rais e i n hi s p ost -c onv ic ti on pet it ion a federal co nst it uti onal i ss ue re gar din g the leg ali ty of his se ntenc e. In order thatsu ch an issue be “fa irly

presen ted ,” a petitio ner m ust ha v e alerte d the court to th e f e d eral nat ure of t he c lai m. See Bald win v. Reese , 541 U .S. 27, 2 9 ( 2004)

. Nev erthel ess , Smi th’ s p ost
conv icti on pet it ion and memorand um of law di d notrefer t o the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on in the present ati on of t he is sue all eg ing the “i ll eg ali ty ” of the s entenc e “ under Tenness ee law .” The pe ti ti on and memorand um al so did not cont ain ci tati ons to federal cons ti tuti onal decision s or set forth facts th at clea rly implicate d such fede ral protect ions.
In Bald win , t he U nit ed St ates Supreme C our t s tated : [O]rdin arily

a state prisoner do es no t “fa irly presen t” a cla im to a state court if t h a t c o u rt mu s t re a d b e y o n d a p e t i t i o n o r a b r i e f ( o r a s i mi l ar doc ument) that does not a lert i t to the presenc e of a federal cl aim in order to find mater ial , s uch as a l ow er co urt opi nio n i n the ca se, thatdoes so . Id. at 32. Bec ause ju st suc h coll ateral sources mustbe c onsul ted i n thi s c ase to di v ine the federal co nst it uti onal bas is of Smit h’s se ntenc e- leg ali ty ch all eng e, and because the w ri t of habeas co rp us is not av ail abl e to remedy er ro rs of onl y

st ate l aw , see 28 U.S.C. § 2 254 (a), the district court prope rly dismissed this issue for failure to e x hau st app ropriate reme dies.No. 05-6669

Smith v. Morgan

- 15 - CO NC LU SION
In ac cordance w it h appl ic abl e law , the pet it ion er i n thi s c ase ex haust ed th e s tatecour t remedie s a v ail abl e i n hi s p ro por ti onal ity ch all eng e to his s e n te nce. H ence, the d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’ s d i s m i s s a l o f t h i s c l a i m o n t h e b a s i s o f p ro c e d u ra l d e fa u l tw a s i m p ro p e r . W e therefore R EVER SE t he j udg ment of the dis tr ic t c our t reg ardin g Sm it h ’s four th c lai m for
re li ef. Bec ause no federal cour t has y et i ss ued a s ubst anti v e r uli ng on t his habeas co rp us claim, w e REMAND the m atte r to the district cou rt fo r a ruling on the merits of Smith ’s propor ti onal ity al leg ati on. How ev er , bec ause Smit h di d not“ fair ly present ” a federa l
c o n s t it u t io n a l c la im re ga rd in g t h e le ga li t y o f h is se n t e n c e u n d e r T e n n e s s e e la w, we AFFIRM the portion of the distri ct court jud gmen t tha t dismisse d the petitio ner’s f if th claim fo r h a b e a s c o r p u s re l i e f.