2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-3-2006 

# C ox v . H orn P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3565

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" C ox v . H orn" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1330. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1330J u d g e R o s e n n p a s s e d a w a yo n F e b ru a ry 7 , 2 0 0 6 , a f te r o ra l a rg u m e n t o n th is c a s e . * T h is o p in io n is f

ile d b yq u o ru m o f

th e p a n e l. 2 8 U .S .C . § 4 6 (d ).

1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 04- 3565 J E RMONT CO X, A ppel l ant
v. M AR T I N HORN; CO NNOR BL AI NE ; T HE DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y OF T HE CO UNT Y OF P HI L ADE L P HI A; T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE S T AT E OF P E N N S Y L V A N IA O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 00- cv- 05188) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A ni t a B . B r ody A r gued J anuary13, 2006 B efore: R O T H , F U E N T E S , and R O S E N N , C i rcui tJudg es. * ( Fi l ed A pr i l 3, 2006) STUA RT B. LEV V I C T O R J . A B R E U ( A r gued) D e f e n d e r A ss o c iatio n o f

P h ilad e lp h ia Feder al C our tD i vi s i on2

Sui t e 545 W es t– T he C ur t i s C ent er Indepe nd ence S qu are W est Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ant L YNNE AB RA HAM D i s t r i ctA t t or ney AR NOL D H. GOR DON Fi r s tA s s i s t antD i s t r i ctA t t or ney RONALD EI S ENBE RG D eputyD i s t r i ctA t t or ney T HOMAS W. DOL GE NOS C hi ef, Feder al L i t i gat i on H E L E N K A N E ( A r gued) A s s i s t antD i s t r i ctA t t or ney O ffi ce of t he D i s t r i ctA t t or ney T h ree S o u th P en n S q u are Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107- 3499 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ees

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. A p p ell an t Jerm o n t C o x ap p ea ls from an o rde r of the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt of the East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a deny i ng hi s appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . W e w ill a f f ir m . I . Backg r ound A s w e w ri t e essent i al l yfor the p art i es, w e need no tdescri be the fact s of t his case i n det ai l . B r i efl y , aft era non- j ur yt r i al i n t he Phi l adel phi a C our tof C om m on Pl eas , C oxA tt he t i m e theygave thei ri ni t i al s t at ement s t o t he pol i ce, both K i m ber l yand 1 M a ryL itt le f

a c e d p e n d in g f

e lo n ya n d m isd e m e a n o r c h a rg e s o f ro b b e ry , sim p le a ss a u lt, r eckl es s l yendange r i ng anotherper s on, theft , r ece i vi ng s t ol en pr oper t y , and cr i m i nal c o n sp ira c y . T h e se c h a rg e s s tem m e d f ro m a n in c id e n t th a t o c c u rre d o n e m o n th p rio r to th e sh o o tin g th e yc laim e d to h a v e w itn e ss e d . B yth e tim e th e ytes tifie d a t C o x ’s tria l, b o th K im b e rlya n d M a ryL itt le h a d b e e n c o n v icte d o f th e les se r o f

f e n se s o f sim p le as s aul t , r eckl es s endange r m entof anotherper s on, and cons pi r acy , and theyeac h r ece i ved a s ent ence of tw o y ear s ’ pr obat i on. 3 w as convi ct ed of f

i r s tdegr ee mur der , cons pi r acy , and pos s es s i on of an i ns t rum entof
cr i m e. T he off

ens es w er e r el at ed t o C ox’ s fat al s hoot i ng of Law r ence D avi s . C ox has
neverdeni ed s hoot i ng D avi s , buthe has al w ay s cont ended thathe di d nothave the i nt ent to k ill a n d th e re f

o re w a s n o t g u ilty o f

f ir s t d e g re e m u rd e r. A ft erC ox’ s convi ct i on w as aff i r m ed on di r ectappea l , C ox s oughtr el i ef i n t he Phi l adel phi a C our tof C om m on Pl eas pur s uantt o t he Penns y l vani a Pos t - C onvi ct i on R e lief A c t (“ P C R A ” ). T h e trial ju d g e c o n d u c ted a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g o n C o x ’s c laim that h is tri al co u n sel h ad b ee n inef fe cti v e f o r fa il ing to im p ea ch tw o o f th e p rose cu ti o n ’s
w i t nes s es — K i m ber l yand M aryL i t t l e— w i t h thei rcr i m i nal r ecor ds and mot i ves t o l i e. 1 T r i al couns el conce ded thathe made no eff or tt o i nves t i gat e the w i t nes s es ’ cr i m i nal
r ecor ds and thathe had no r eas onabl e bas i s forfai l i ng t o do s o. T he j udge found thatt r i al
couns el ’ s per form ance had bee n defi ci ent , buts he conc l uded thatC ox di d nots uffe r pr ej udi ce a nd, as a r es ul t , di s m i s s ed C ox’ s PC R A pet i t i on. T he Penns y l vani a Super i or C o u rtaf firm ed an d the P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rtd en ied a ll o ca tur. O n O ct ober12, 2000, C ox fi l ed an a ppl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus pur s uant4

t o 28 U . S. C . § 2254. T he D i s t r i ctC our tr efe r r ed the mat t ert o a M agi s t r at e J udge, w ho i s s u e d a Re p o r ta n d Re c o mme n d a t i o n i n wh i c h h e f o u n d th a ta l l b u to n e o f Co x ’ s c l a i ms had bee n pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed. T he M agi s t r at e J udge addr es s ed the r emai ni ng cl ai m — t hatC ox’ s t r i al couns el pr ovi ded cons t i tut i onal l yi neff ect i ve as s i s t ance byfai l i ng to im p e a c h K im b e rlya n d M a ryL itt le— o n th e m e rits a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia Super i orC our t ’ s opi ni on r ej ect i ng thatcl ai m w as nei t her“contr aryt o” noran

“ u n re a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f ” e s ta b lis h e d f

e d e ra l la w . T he D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued an or deradopt i ng the R epor tand R ecomm endat i on and deny i ng C ox’ s appl i cat i on forhabea s r el i ef. I n a s epar at e or deri s s ued the s ame day , t he D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted a ce rt ifi ca te of ap p ea labili tyas to w h ethe r th e state c o u rt ’s
reso luti o n o f C o x ’s i n ef fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel claim b ase d o n tr ial co u n sel’s fa il u re t o i m peac h K i m ber l yL i t t l e w i t h evi dence of hercr i m i nal r ecor d w as “contr aryt o” oran “unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of” c l ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw , and w hetherC ox had
es t abl i s hed ca us e and pr ej udi ce t o over come t he pr ocedur al defa ul tof hi s r emai ni ng cl ai m s. I I . D i s cus s i on W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253. A s t o t he i s s ues on w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted a ce rt ifi ca te of ap p ea labili ty , this C o u rtex erc ises p lena ry r evi ew beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tr el i ed exc l us i vel yon t he s t at e courtr ecor d and di d not h o ld a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . S e e J a c o b s v . H o rn , 3 9 5 F .3 d 9 2 , 9 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).5

A f e d e ra l co u rt m a yg ra n t re lief to a h a b e a s a p p lica n t “w ith re sp e c t to a n yc laim that w as a d

jud icated o n the m erit s in S tat e c o u rtp roc ee d ing s, ” o n lyif th e state’s adj udi cat i on of the cl ai m w as ei t her“contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned bythe Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es , ” ori t“r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on thatw as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of t h e f a c t s i n l i g h to f

t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n th e S t a t e c o u r tp r o c e e d i n g . ” 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 4 (d ). A s t at e courtdeci s i on i s “contr aryt o” Supr eme C our tpr ece dentunder § 2254( d) ( 1) w her e the s t at e courtr eac hed a “ concl us i on oppos i t e t o t hatr eac hed by[the Supr eme] C our ton a ques t i on of l aw ori f the s t at e courtdeci des a ca s e di ffe r ent l ythan [ th e S u p re m e ] C o u rt h a s o n a s e t o f m a te ri a lly in d is tin g u is h a b le f a c ts .” W i l l i ams v. T ay l or , 529 U . S. 362, 413 ( 2000) . A s t at e courtdeci s i on i s an “unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on” under§ 2254( d) ( 1) i f the court“i dent i fi es the corr ectgoverni ng l egal rul e fr om the S u p re m e C o u rt’s c a se s b u t u n re a so n a b lya p p lies it t o th e f a c ts o f th e p a rticu lar c a se o r if the s tat e c o u rteith er u n rea so n ab lyex tend s a leg al princ iple fro m the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s pr ece dentt o a new cont extw her e i ts houl d notappl yorunr eas onabl yr efus es t o ext end t hatpr i nci pl e t o a new cont extw her e i ts houl d appl y . ” G at t i s v. Sny der , 278 F. 3d 222, 2 2 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( c itin g W illia m s , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 4 0 7 ). A . I neff

ect i ve A s s i s t ance of C ouns el B eca us e C ox cl ai m s t hathi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o eff ect i ve as s i s t ance of6

c o u n se l w a s v io late d , h a b e a s re lief is a v a ilab le if

th e sta te c o u rt’s r e

jec tio n o f

h is c laim is ei t her“contr aryt o” ori nvol ved an “ unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of” the fa m i l i ar tw o -pro n g ed testestab li sh ed in S tr icklan d v . W ash ing ton , 4 6 6 U . S . 6 6 8 (19 8 4 ). C o x f irst a rg u e s th a t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p e rio r C o u rt’s d e c isio n re jec tin g h is i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m w as “contr aryt o” St r i ckl and bec aus e the Super i or C our tappl i ed an out come- det erm i nat i ve t es tfordet erm i ni ng pr ej udi ce r atherthan S t ri ckland’s “r easona ble pr ob abil i t y ” st and ard. S pecifi cal l y , atthe o uts etof it s anal y si s, t he S up eri or C ou rtst at ed thati n o rdert o est abli sh prej ud i ce, a P C R A peti t i on er m ust sh o w th a t “b u t f

o r th e a c t o r o m iss io n [ o f trial c o u n se l] th e o u tco m e o f th e c a se w o u ld have be en di ffe r ent . ” ( J A 20. ) A ccor di ng t o C ox, thi s pr ej udi ce s t andar d i s an err oneous “pr eponder ance of the evi dence ” s t andar d, and thus i s “contr aryt o” Str i ckl and. A l t hough t he Super i orC our ti ni t i al l yar t i cul at ed a s t andar d forr evi ew i ng in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l cla im s th a t n e ith e r c ited S trick lan d n o r d e sc rib e d its pr ej udi ce s t andar d w i t h compl et e ac cur acy , the keyques t i on her e i s w hetherthe Super i or C our tr ej ect ed C ox’ s cl ai m bas ed on r eas oni ng thatw as cons i s t entw i t h St r i ckl and. See E ar l yv. Packer , 537 U . S. 3, 8 ( 2002) ( percur i am) ( expl ai ni ng thatqual i fi cat i on for defe r ence underA E D PA “does notr equi r e ci t at i on of ourcas es — i ndeed, i tdoes noteven r equi r e aw ar enes s of ourcas es , s o l ong as nei t herthe r eas oni ng northe r es ul tof the s t at ecour tdeci s i on contr adi ct s t hem”) ; Pr i es t erv. V aughn, 382 F. 3d 394, 398 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( obs ervi ng t hat“as l ong as t he r eas oni ng of the s t at e courtdoes notcontr adi ctr el evant7

Supr eme C our tpr ece dent , A E D PA ’ s gener al rul e of de fer ence appl i es ”) . A ft erthe Super i orC our tenunci at ed the pr ej udi ce s t andar d and r evi ew ed evi dence fr om C ox’ s t r i al th a t w a s u n a f

f e c ted b yc o u n se l’s e rro r, th e S u p e rio r C o u rt sta ted th e f o llo w in g : A s s uch, w e ca nnotconcl ude thatcouns el ’ s om i s s i on r ender ed the ver di ct unr el i abl e, beca us e the w i t nes s ’ t es t i m onyw as notcr i t i cal t o t he pr os ecut i on’ s cas e. ( J A 21 ( emphasi s added) . ) T hi s l anguage m i r r or s the St r i ckl and C our t ’ s expl anat i on t hat t o s at i s fyt he pr ej udi ce pr ong t he def endantm us ts how t hatthe def i ci entper form ance pr ej udi ced the d e f e n se . T h is re q u ire s s h o w in g th a t co u n se l’s e rro rs w e re so se rio u s a s to depr i ve the def

endantof a f

ai rtr i al , a tr i al w hos e r es ul ti s r el i abl e. S tr icklan d , 4 6 6 U . S . at 68 7 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h u s, d esp it e the S u p erior C o u rt ’s
e n u n c iatio n o f

a n in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l sta n d a rd th a t, on its f a c e , ap p e a rs to
r equi r e a hi ghers how i ng of pr ej udi ce, i t s r ej ect i on of C ox’ s cl ai m i s not“contr aryt o” St r i ckl and fort hatr eas on. C ox nextar gues t hatt he Super i orC our t ’ s r ej ect i on of hi s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m w as “contr aryt o” St r i ckl and bec aus e the Super i orC our tdi d notpr oper l yas s es s t he ef fe ct of tr ial co u n sel’s fa il u re to im p ea ch K im b erlyL ittl e o n the g u il tyv erd ict . In S trick lan d , the S u p re m e C o u rt d e sc rib e d h o w c o u rts s h o u ld a ss e ss p re ju d ice a s f

o llo w s: I n m aki ng [the pr ej udi ce] det erm i nat i on, a courthear i ng an i neff ect i venes s cl ai m m us tcons i derthe t ot al i t yof the evi dence befor e the j udge orj ur y . Som e of the fa ctual fi ndi ngs w i l l have be en unaf fec t ed bythe e rro rs, a n d f

a c tu a l f in d in g s th a t w e re a f

f e c ted w ill h a v e b e e n a f

f e c ted in di ffe r entw ay s . Som e err or s w i l l have ha d a pervas i ve ef fec ton t he inf ere n ce s to b e d raw n fro m the e v iden ce , alt ering the e n ti re e v iden ti ary8

p ic tu re , a n d s o m e w ill h a v e h a d a n is o la te d , tr iv ia l e f f e c t. M o re o v e r, a v e rd ict o r c o n c lu sio n o n lyw e a k lysu p p o rte d b yth e re c o rd is m o re lik e lyto h a v e b e e n a f

f e c te d b ye rr o rs th a n o n e w ith o v e rw h e lm in g re c o rd s u p p o rt . T aki ng t he unaf

fec t ed fi ndi ngs as a gi ven, and t aki ng due ac countof the eff ectof the err or s on t he r emai ni ng fi ndi ngs , a courtm aki ng the pr ej udi ce i nqui r ym us tas k i f the def endanthas m etthe bur den of s how i ng thatthe deci s i on r eac hed w oul d r eas onabl yl i kel yhave be en di ffe r entabs entthe err ors. S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 4 -9 5 . I n fi ndi ng t hatpr ej udi ce di d notexi s t , the Super i orC our tr evi ew ed the evi dence
u n a f f e c ted b yc o u n se l’s e rro r a n d sta ted : “B e c a u se th e re is a d d iti o n a l ev id e n c e to su sta in a convi ct i on forfi r s tdegr ee mur derw i t houtt aki ng i nt o acc ountthe t es t i m onyof the
w itn ess in q u esti o n , C o x h as f ail ed to sh o w that h e w as p rejud iced b yh is tri al co u n sel’s fai l ur e t o i m peac h t hatw i t nes s . ” ( J A 21- 22. ) T he Super i orC our tfur t hernot ed that K i m ber l yL i t t l e’ s t es t i m onyw as “notcr i t i cal t o t he pr os ecut i on’ s cas e. ” ( J A 21. ) B as ed on t hes e s t at ement s , w e ca nnotconcl ude thatthe Super i orC our t ’ s as s es s m entof pr ej udi ce i s “contr aryt o” St r i ckl and. W e a lso a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rtthat the S u p erior C o u rt ’s rejecti o n o f C o x ’s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m w as notan “unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of” St r i ckl and. A ccor di ng t o C ox, t he Super i orC our tdi s r egar ded the i m por t ance of K im b erlyL ittl e’s testi m o n yto the p rose cu ti o n ’s ca se a n d g av e too m u ch w eigh t t o o ther,
w h o llyc irc u m sta n tial, ev id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial. H o w e v e r, ev e n w ith o u t K im b e rly L i t t l e’ s t es t i m ony , t he ver di ctw as s uppor t ed byci r cumst ant i al evi dence . Forexampl e, C o x a d m itt e d to p o lice th a t h e sh o t th e v ictim f ro m a d ista n c e o f

tw o f e e t, an d th e v ictim

### In cl ai m II I, Co x ass erts that

tria l c ounselwas ineff

ec tive fo r fai ling to im

peac h 2 

### Ki m be rly andMary

Li tt l e wi th e vi de nc e that the y we r e r e l at e d t o thevi c t i m . I n c l a i m I V, C o xasserts th at trial co un sel w as in ef f ectiv e f o r f ailin g to im

p eachK im

b erly L ittle w ith an a l l e ge dly

pri or i nc ons i s t e nt

s t at e m e nt

r e gar di ng he r

l oc at i on at

the t i m e of the s hoot i ng. 9 s u s ta in e d th re e g u n s h o t w o u n d s to v ita l p a rt s o f th e b o d y , s p e c if

ic a lly th e n e c k a n d c h e s t. I n addi t i on, t he bal l i s t i cs expertexpl ai ned thatthe l i kel i hood of an a cci dent al s hoot i ng w as di m i ni s hed byt he numberof s hot s fi r ed. I ti s true thatthe bal l i s t i cs expertt es t i fi ed t hathe coul d notexcl ude the pos s i bi l i t yof an a cci dent al s hoot i ng w i t houtexami ni ng t he
w eapon; nonethel es s , t he expe r t ’ s t es t i m onyaboutthe l i kel i hood of an a cci dent al
s h o o t i n g w e i g h s a g a i n s tC o x ’ s c l a i m th a th e s h o tth e v i c t i m a c c i d e n t a l l y. A c c o r d i n g l y, t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r tp r o p e r l yr e j e c t e d Co x ’ s “ u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n ” c l a i m. B. P r o c e d u r a l l yDe f a u l t e d Cl a i ms Fi nal l y , C ox ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n fi ndi ng thathi s r emai ni ng s even c laim s f o r h a b e a s re lief

w e re p ro c e d u ra llyd e f

a u lted b e c a u se C o x d id n o t “f a irlyp re se n t” t hem t o t he s t at e court . “To ‘f ai r l ypr es ent ’ a cl ai m , a pet i t i onerm us tpr es enta fe der al cl ai m ’ s fac tual and l egal s ubs t ance t o t he s t at e court s i n a mannerthatput s them on not i ce t hata fe der al cl ai m i s bei ng as s er t ed. ” M cC andl es s v. V aughn, 172 F. 3d 255, 261 ( 3d Ci r . 19 99 ) ( c i t i ng A nd e r s on v. H a r l e s s , 45 9 U. S. 4, 6 ( 19 82 ) ; Pi c a r d v . Conno r , 40 4 U. S. 2 7 0 , 2 7 7 -7 8 (1 9 7 1 )) . C ox fi r s tar gues t hathe “f ai r l ypr es ent ed” c l ai m s I I I and I V of hi s fede r al habea s 2 appl i cat i on t o t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our ti n hi s pr o s e Pet i t i on forA l l ow ance of10

A ppeal . T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yr ej ect ed thi s ar gum ent . See C as t i l l e v. Peopl es , 489 U . S. 346, 351 ( 1989) ( hol di ng t hata Penns y l vani a habe as pet i t i onerw ho s ubm i t t ed a ne w cl ai m i n a pet i t i on fordi s cr et i onaryr evi ew on di r ectappea l di d notfai r l ypr es entthe
c la im to th e s ta te c o u rt f o r p u rp o s e s o f

e x h a u s tio n ). C o x f u rth e r c o n ten d s th a t cla im s II I a n d IV a re e x h a u ste d b e c a u se h e a ttem p ted to
r a i s e t h e m i n h i s f

i r s tP CRA p r o c e e d i n g a n d a g a i n i n th e s e c o n d , t i me - b a r r e d P CRA pet i t i on. T o be s ur e, t hes e cl ai m s w er e i ncl uded i n t he amended pet i t i on thathi s couns el f iled d u rin g th e f

irst P C R A p ro c e e d in g . H o w e v e r, C o x ’s c o u n se l— a p p o in ted p u rsu a n t to C o x ’s req u est— ch o se to ab an d o n thes e issu es a n d p roc ee d o n lyo n tr ial co u n sel’s in e f f e c tiv e n e s s f

o r f a ilin g to im p e a c h K im b e rl yL ittle w ith h e r c ri m in a l h is to ry. L ik e w ise , in C o x ’s a p p e a l f ro m th e d e n ial o f

P C R A re lief

, h e p re se n ted n o a rg u m e n t in
s uppor tof the cl ai m s w hi ch he ha d abandone d befor e the PC R A cour t . A ccor di ngl y , C ox fai l ed to “fai rl ypresent ” cl ai m s I II and IV t o the st at e cou rt s. Fi nal l y , C ox ar gues t hateven i f cl ai m s I I I and I V ar e pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have a ddr es s ed thei rm er i t s beca us e he c an es t abl i s h “ca us e and p r e j u d i c e ” t o o v e r c o me a n yd e f a u l t . To s h o w “ c a u s e , ” a p e t i t i o n e rmu s t“ s h o w t h a ts o me obj ect i ve fa ct orext ernal t o t he def ens e i m peded c ouns el ’ s eff or t s t o compl yw i t h t he St at e’ s pr ocedur al rul e. ” C ol eman v. T hom ps on, 501 U . S. 722, 753 ( 1991) . C ox ar gues t hati f anypr ocedur al defa ul toccurr ed, i tar os e bec aus e the s t at e court s di d notfol l ow their ow n p roc ed u res a s set fo rth in C o m m o n w ea lth v . E ll is, 5 8 1 A . 2 d 5 9 5 (P a. S u p er.11

1 9 8 0 ) , wi t h r e s p e c tt o h i s p r o s e p e t i t i o n f o ra l l o wa n c e o f

a p p e a l a n d h i s p r o s e P CRA p eti ti o n . H o w ev er, C o x ca n n o t sho w “c au se” b ec au se th e P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rt wa s n o tb o u n d b yt h e p r o c e d u r e o u t l i n e d b yth e S u p e r i o rCo u r ti n E l l i s . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s f a ilu re to re m a n d to t he tr i al cour tt o det erm i ne w hetherC ox w ant ed t o pr ocee d pr o s e orw i t h couns el does
n o t es tab lish “ c a u se ” to o v e rc o m e a p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt. I I I . C oncl usi on W e have cons i der ed al l of the ar gum ent s advanc ed bythe part i es and conc l ude that
n o f u rth e r d isc u ss io n is n e c e ss a ry . A c c o rd in g ly , the ju d g m e n t o f th e D istric t C o u rt w ill be af fi r m ed.