09-0826-pr

Carvajal v. Artus 1 UNI TEDSTATE S COURT OF APPEALS 2 3 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUI T 4 5 Aug ustTe rm, 20 10 6 7 (Ar gue d: Sep tember29 , 2 010 D eci ded : J anu ary25 , 2 011 ) 8 9 Doc ketNo . 09- 082 6-p r 10 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 13 ALVAROCARVA JAL , 14 15 16 Pet iti one r-Appe lla nt, 17 18 - v .- 19 SUP ERI NTE NDE NT DAL E ARTU S, 20 21 Res pon den t-Appe lle e . 22 23 24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 25 Bef ore : JAC OBS , C hie f Judg e, FEI NBE RG and 26 27 CAB RAN ES, Ci rcu it Judges . 28 29 30 App eal fr om thede nia l o f a n a ppl ica tio n f or a w ritof 31 hab eas co rpu s i n t he Uni tedSt ate s D ist ric t C our t f or the 32 Sou the rn Dis tri ct of NewYo rk (McMah on, J. ). Al var o 33 Car vaj al, a NewYo rk Sta te pri son er, ar gue s t hathi s 34 pro sec uti on in NewYo rk forth e u nla wfu l p oss ess ionofa 35 con tro lle d s ubs tan ce exc eed ed NewYo rk’ s c rim ina l 36 ter rit ori al jur isd ict ion(b eca usebo th he andth e d rug s t hat2 1 formedth e b asi s f or thepr ose cut ionwe re fou nd in 2 Cal ifo rni a), an d t her efo re vio lat ed his fe der al 3 con sti tut ion al rig hts . Car vaj al con ten ds tha t a ffi rma nceof 4 his co nvi cti on by theNe w Y orkCo urtofAp pea ls was co ntr ary 5 to, oranun rea son abl e a ppl ica tio n o f, cle arl y e sta bli she d 6 Sup reme C our t p rec ede nt tha t l imi ts a s tat e’s pr ose cut ori al 7 pow er to onl y t hos e o ffe nse s t hatwe re eit herco mmi tte d 8 wit hinth e p ros ecu tin g s tat e o r t hatwe re commit tedou tsi de 9 butha d b othanin ten dedan d a ctu al det riment al eff ect 10 wit hin . We dis mis s t he app lic ati on on thegr oun d t hat 11 Car vaj al’ s f ede ral co nst itu tio nal cl aimis pr oce dur all y 12 def aul ted . 13 14 GEO RGI A J . H IND E, NewYo rk, Ne w 15 Yor k, forPe tit ion er- App ell ant . 16 17 THOMAS B. LI TSKY, Ass ist ant 18 Att orn ey Gen era l ( And rewM. Cu omo , 19 Att orn ey Gen era l o f t he Sta te of New 20 Yor k, Bar bar a D . U nde rwo od, So lic ito r 21 Gen era l, Ros ean n B . MacK ech nie , D epu ty 22 Sol ici torGe ner al forCr imi nal Ma tte rs, 23 on thebr ief ), NewYo rk, Ne w Y ork , f or Res pon den t-Appe lle e. 24 25 26 DENNIS JACOB S, Chi ef Judge: 27 Alv aroCa rva jal , aNe w Y orkSt atepr iso ner , a ppe als 28 fro m t he den ial ofanap pli cat ionfo r h abe as cor pus re lie f 29 in theUn ite d S tat es Dis tri ct Cou rt forth e S out her n3 1 Dis tri ct of NewYo rk (McMah on, J. ). Hear gue s t hathi s 2 pro sec uti on in NewYo rk forth e u nla wfu l p oss ess ionofa 3 con tro lle d s ubs tan ce exc eed ed NewYo rk’ s c rim ina l 4 ter rit ori al jur isd ict ion , a nd the reb y v iol ate d h is fed era l 5 con sti tut ion al rig hts , b eca usebo th he andth e d rug s t hat 6 formedth e b asi s f or his pr ose cut ionfo r u nla wfu l p oss ess ion 7 of a c ont rol ledsu bst anc e w erefo undinCa lif orn ia. 8 Car vaj al cha lle nge s t he pow er of NewYo rk Sta te to pro sec ute 9 himfo r t he pos ses sor y o ffe nse s f or whi ch he was co nvi cte d. 10 Butou r p owe r t o g ran t r eli ef is lim ite d b y t he 11 Ant ite rro ris m a nd Eff ect iveDe athPe nal ty Actof19 96, Pu b. 12 L. No. 10 4-1 32, § 104 , 1 10 Sta t. 121 4, 121 9 ( 199 6) 13 (“AEDPA”) , whic h b ars re lie f t o ast atepr iso nerwh o r ais es 14 a f ede ral co nst itu tio nal cl aimun les s t he sta te cou rt’ s 15 rul ingwa s c ont rar y t o, or an unr eas ona bleap pli cat ionof , 16 cle arl y e sta bli she d S upr emeCo urtpr ece den t, andth e c lai m 17 was fa irl y p res ent ed to thest ateco urt . 18 Car vaj al con ten ds tha t a ffi rma nceofhi s c onv ict ionby 19 theNe w Y orkCo urtofAp pea ls was co ntr aryto , o r a n 20 unr eas ona bleap pli cat ionof , c lea rlyes tab lis hedSu pre me 21 Cou rt pre ced entth at lim its a sta te’ s p ros ecu tor ial po werto 22 onl y t hos e o ffe nse s t hatwe re commit tedwi thi n t he4 1 pro sec uti ng sta te or tha t w ereco mmi tte d o uts idebu t h ad 2 bot h a n i nte nde d a nd act ual de tri men tal ef fec t w ith in. 3 TheNe w Y orkCo urtofAp pea ls det erm ine d t hatth e t ria l 4 cou rt’ s e xer cis e o f t err ito ria l j uri sdi cti on ove r C arv aja l 5 was pr ope r u nde r s tat e l aw, no tedth at Car vaj al hadne ver 6 cha lle nge d t he sta te’ s j uri sdi cti on on con sti tut ion al 7 gro und s, andup hel d h is con vic tio n. Th e U nit ed Sta tes 8 Dis tri ct Cou rt forth e S out her n D ist ric t o f N ew Yor k 9 dis mis sedth e a ppl ica tio n f or a w ritofha bea s c orp us, bu t 10 iss ueda cer tif ica te of app eal abi lit y o n t he que sti on of 11 whe the r N ew Yor k h ad ter rit ori al jur isd ict iontopr ose cut e 12 Car vaj al forth reeco unt s o f d rugpo sse ssi on whe n h e 13 pos ses sedth e d rug s a t i ssu e e xcl usi vel y o ut- of- sta te and 14 was ar res tedinan oth er sta te, bu t p art ici pat ed in a 15 con spi rac y t o t ran spo rt dru gs int o N ew Yor k. 16 Thefo rceofCa rva jal ’s arg ume nt not wit hst and ing , w e 17 mus t d eemhi s c lai m p roc edu ral ly def aul tedan d d ism iss hi s 18 app lic ati on fora wri t o f h abe as cor pus . 19 BACKGR OUND 20 In 199 3, theNe w Y orkSt ateDr ug Enf orc eme nt Tas k F orc e 21 lau nch ed an inv est iga tio n i ntoa Col omb ianna rco tic s 22 tra ffi cki ng org ani zat ionse t u p t o t ran spo rt coc ain e f rom5 1 theSa n F ran cis co are a t o N ew Yor k C ity . Int erc ept ed 2 tel eph oneco nve rsa tio ns andot hersu rve ill anc e i ndi cat ed 3 tha t C arv aja l w as in cha rgeofth e W estCo asten d a nd tha t 4 Car vaj al andhi s c oco nsp ira tor s i n N ew Yor k e mpl oye d a 5 net wor k o f i ndi vidual s t o “ dri ve, st ore , a nd oth erw iseta ke 6 car e o f t he dru gs andequipmen t.” P eop le v. Car vaj al, 78 6 7 N.Y .S. 2d 450 , 4 52 (Ap p. Div . 1 st Dep ’t 200 4). C arv aja l m ade 8 onetr ip to NewYo rk, in19 94, bu t w as notar res tedatth at 9 time o r f oun d i n p oss ess ionofan y d rug s. 10 Ult ima tel y, Cal ifo rni a a uth ori tie s r eco ver ed lar ge 11 qua nti tie s o f d rug s h idd en in veh icl es wit h s ecr et 12 compar tme nts an d a“s tas h h ous e” use d b y t he tra ffi cki ng 13 org ani zat ioninCa lif orn ia. C arv aja l w as arr est ed in 14 Cal ifo rni a a nd ext rad ite d t o N ew Yor k wher e h e w as cha rge d 15 wit h c ons pir acyinth e s eco nd deg reean d t hre e c oun ts of 16 cri min al pos ses sio n o f aco ntr oll ed sub sta nce . All ofth e 17 dru gs tha t f ormed theba sis fo r t hes e p oss ess ionco unt s w ere 18 fou nd andse ize d i n C ali for nia . On his ar res t, Car vaj al was 19 in pos ses sio n o f n ume rou s d ocumen ts lin kin g h im to oth er 20 member s o f t he nar cot ics co nsp ira cy, bu t n o d rug s w ereon 21 his pe rso n o r i n h is vic ini ty. U nde r N ew Yor k l aw, Ca rva jal 22 was de eme d t o b e i n c ons tru cti ve pos ses sio n o f t he dru gs6 1 sei zedinCa lif orn ia bec aus e h e e xer cis ed dom ini on ove r 2 sub ord ina te member s o f t he con spi rac y who wer e f oun d i n 3 act ual po sse ssi on of thena rco tic s, andbe cau se he exe rci sed 4 con tro l o verth e c ars an d “ sta sh hou se” wh ereth e d rug s w ere 5 sei zed . SeePe opl e v . Mani ni, 79 N. Y.2 d 5 61, 56 9-7 0 ( 199 2). 6 Car vaj al was tr ied , a lon g w ithse ver al of his Ne w Y ork 7 coc ons pir ato rs, inth e S tat e S upr emeCo urtfo r N ew Yor k 8 Cou nty . 9 Thetr ial ev ide ncere fle cte d n ume rou s p hon e c all s 10 bet wee n C arv aja l a nd his Ne w Y orkco con spi rat ors an d 11 emp has ize d C arv aja l’s ro le in sup erv isi ng thedi str ibu tio n 12 con spi rac y f romCa lif orn ia. S ee Car vaj al v. Art us, No . 0 7 13 Civ . 1 063 4 ( CM) (AJ P), 20 08 WL 455 553 1, at *2- *9 (S. D.N .Y. 14 Oct . 1 0, 200 8). C arv aja l’s ap pli cat ionfo r r eli ef doe s n ot 15 cha lle ngeth e s uff ici enc y o f t he evi den ce lin kin g h im to the 16 con spi rac y. Se e N .Y. Cr im. Pr oc. La w §20 .20 (2) (d) . The 17 iss ue is whe the r h e i s e nti tle d t o h abe as rel iefwi th 18 res pec t t o t he pos ses sio n c oun ts of his co nvi cti on bec aus e 19 NewYo rk lac kedth e p owe r t o p ros ecu te himfo r t hos e 20 off ens es. 21 At thest atetr ial , Just iceBo nni e G . W itt nerin formed 22 thepa rti es tha t, und er Peo plev. Mc Lau ghl in, 80 N. Y.2 d 4 66,7 1 469 (1 992 ), thepr ose cut ionne ed notpr oveth e e xis ten ce of 2 jur isd ict ionbe yon d are aso nab le dou bt unl ess th e d efe nse 3 dis put ed theex ist enc e o f p rop er jur isd ict ion . Car vaj al, 4 200 8 W L 4 555 531 , a t * 9. De fen se cou nse l u nde rto ok to rai se 5 theju ris dic tio n i ssu e v ia cro ss- examin ati on of oneofth e 6 pro sec uti on’ s w itn ess es. Just iceWi ttn er emp has ize d h er 7 vie w t hatju ris dic tio n w as est abl ish ed as to thepo sse ssi on 8 cou nts byev ide nceofCa rva jal ’s cel l p hon e c onv ers ati ons 9 wit h h is NewYo rk coc ons pir ato rs, be cau se eac h o f t hos e 10 con ver sat ion s “ wen t t hro ugha cel l [ s]i te wit hinth e 11 geo gra phi cal te rri tor y o f t he Sta te of NewYo rk. ” Id. 12 Odd ly, Ca rva jal ’s cou nse l s aidhedi d n ot “di sag ree ” w ith 13 thetr ial ju dge ’s sta tementofth e l aw on thi s p oin t. Id . 14 Non eth ele ss, th e t ria l j udg e a nno unc ed tha t, at there que st 15 of thede fen se, sh e w oul d c har ge theju ry on thequ est ionof 16 whe the r t he Sta te hadte rri tor ial ju ris dic tio n. Id . a t * 10. 17 Des pit e t he fac t t hatth e t ria l j udg e w as wil lin g t o g ivea 18 cha rgeonju ris dic tio n, Car vaj al andhi s c ode fen dan t 19 sub sequen tlywi thd rewth eirre que st forsu ch a c har ge. I d. 20 App are ntl y, thi s w as don e b eca usede fen se cou nse l o bje cte d 21 to thema nne r i n whic h Just iceWi ttn er int end ed to cha rge 22 theju ry on jur isd ict ion . It see ms def ens e c oun sel so ugh tWeco nfi ne our sel ves toa rev iewofth e i ssu e 1 pre sen tedinth e c ert ifi cat e o f a ppe ala bil ityan d d o n ot add res s t he wis domoftr ial co uns el’ s d eci sio n o n t his poi nt. 8 1 to avo id thesu bmi ssi on of sixin ter rog ato rie s t o t he jur y, 2 whi ch wou ld con form t o t he pro sec uti on’ s t heo ry of 3 jur isd ict ion , a nd whi ch “wo uldre qui re rea din g t he ove rt 4 act s i n t he ind ict men t” to theju ry. App. R. Ex . Dat34 . 1 5 Car vaj al was co nvi cte d o n a ll cou nts ofth e i ndi ctment 6 andse nte nce d t o a n a ggr ega te ind ete rmi nat e p ris on term o f 7 thi rty -fi ve yea rs to lif e. Hewa s s ubs equ ent ly res ent enc ed 8 und er theRo cke fel lerDr ug Ref ormAc t t o ade termin ate 9 sen ten ce of twe lve -an d-a -ha lf to twe nty -fi ve yea rs on the 10 con spi rac y c onv ict ion , a nd thi rte en yea rs imp ris onmentfo r 11 twoofth e p oss ess ionco unt s, all toru n c onc urr ent ly, an d a 12 con sec uti ve term o f t hir tee n y ear s’ imp ris onmentonth e 13 thi rd pos ses sio n c oun t. Bu t f or theco nse cut ivete rm of 14 imp ris onmentimpos ed on theth irdpo sse ssi on cou nt, Ca rva jal 15 wou ld be immedi ate ly eli gib le forpa rol e a nd rem ova l t o 16 Col omb ia. 17 Rep res ent ed by newco uns el, Ca rva jal ap pea led his 18 con vic tio n t o t he NewYo rk Sta te App ell ateDi vis ion , F irs t 19 Dep art men t. Inre lev antpa rt, Ca rva jal ar gue d t hatth e9 1 que sti on of NewYo rk’ s t err ito ria l j uri sdi cti on was no n2 wai vab le bec aus e “ [t] err ito ria l j uri sdi cti on ref ers toth e 3 pow er of theco urttohe ar andde termin e t he cas e,” an d t hat 4 ter rit ori al jur isd ict ionwa s l ack ingonth e p oss ess ion 5 cou nts be cau se theac ts of pos ses sio n “ too k p lac e whol ly 6 out sid e o f N ew Yor k.” App. R. Ex . Dat25 . Car vaj al’ s 7 bri ef to theAp pel lat e D ivi sio n c ite d t he NewYo rk Cou rt of 8 App eal s’ dec isi on of McL aug hli n, whi ch rec ogn ize d t hat 9 “[t ]hege ner al rul e i n N ew Yor k i s t hat , f or theSt ateto 10 hav e c rim ina l j uri sdi cti on, ei the r t he all ege d c onductor 11 some c ons equ enc e o f i t mustha ve occ urr ed wit hinth e S tat e.” 12 80 N.Y .2dat47 1; seeal so N.Y . C rim . P roc . L aw § 2 0.2 0. 13 TheAp pel lat e D ivi sio n a gre ed tha t “ [b] eca useth e S tat e 14 onl y h as pow er to ena ct anden for ce cri min al law s w ith in its 15 ter rit ori al bor der s, the re canbenocr imi nal of fen se unl ess 16 it has te rri tor ial ju ris dic tio n.” C arv aja l, 786 N. Y.S .2dat 17 453 . And , t he App ell ateDi vis ionre mar kedth at it was 18 “aw areofnoot herca se in whi ch a d efe nda nt was co nvi cte d 19 of pos ses sio n o f aco ntr oll ed sub sta ncewh en nei the r t he 20 dru gs at iss ue north e d efe nda nt was inNe w Y orkatth e t ime 21 of theof fen se. ” Id. at45 4. Ne ver the les s, theco urthe ld 22 tha t t he Sta te hadju ris dic tio n t o p ros ecu te Car vaj al und erCa rva jal ar gue d, wit hou t s ucc ess , t hatth e c our t 2 cou ld notre ly on NewYo rk Cri min al Pro cedureLa w §20 .60 to est abl ishth at an ele men t o f t he pos ses sio n o ffe nseoc cur red in NewYo rk. C arv aja l main tai ned : “Pu t s imp ly, un der Cri min al Pro cedureLa w §20 .60 (1) , i t i s t he commun ica tio n whi ch is dee medtobeinea ch jur isd ict ion , n ot theob jec ts abo ut whi ch the re is commun ica tio n.” App. R. Ex . Dat33 ; seeal so, e. g., Pe opl e v . G ior dan o, 87 N.Y .2d44 1, 449 (19 95) (f ind ingN. Y. Cri m. Pro c. Law§ 20. 60( 1) “pr ovi des tha t o ral st ate men ts mad e o verth e t ele pho ne arede eme d t o be sta tement s madeinbo th these ndi ng andre cei vin g 10 1 Cri min al Pro cedureLa w s ect ion20 .20 (1) (a) . Car vaj al, 78 6 2 N.Y .S. 2d at 454 , 4 55; se e a lsoN. Y. Cri m. Pro c. Law 3 § 2 0.2 0(1 )(a ) ( pro vid ingfo r j uri sdi cti on ove r a n o ffe nse 4 whe n c onductoc cur redwi thi n N ew Yor k s uff ici entto 5 est abl ishanel eme nt of theof fen se) . Car vaj al was “d eemed 6 to hav e b eeninNe w Y orkfo r j uri sdi cti ona l p urp ose s” 7 bec aus e o f p hon e c all s madetohi s N ew Yor k c oco nsp ira tor s, 8 andwa s d eemed to hav e c ons tru cti vel y p oss ess ed thedr ugs in 9 NewYo rk bec aus e h e e xer cis ed con tro l o verth e d rug s a nd his 10 sub ord ina tes wh o h eldth e d rug s i n C ali for nia . Car vaj al, 11 786 N. Y.S .2dat45 5; seeal so N.Y . C rim . P roc . L aw 12 § 2 0.6 0(1 ) ( pro vid ingth at “[a ]n ora l o r w rit tenst ate men t 13 mad e b y ape rso n i n o ne jur isd ict iontoa per soninan oth er 14 jur isd ict ionbyme ans ofte lec ommuni cat ion s, mai l o r a ny 15 oth er met hodofco mmu nic ati on is dee medtobema de in eac h 16 suc h j uri sdi cti on” ). T he App ell ateDi vis ionup hel d 2cou nti es” ); Peo plev. Ce spe des , 7 99 N.Y .S. 2d 703 , 7 13- 14

(Su p. Ct. N. Y. Co. 20 05) (“ Cri min al Pro cedureLa w §20 .60 (1) sho uld. . . begi vena nar rowap pli cat ion . . . . [It ] ins ure s t hatifth e r equ ire men ts of ven ue areot her wis e sat isf iedbya suf fic ien t c rim ina l c onn ect ionoref fec t i n theco unt y o f p ros ecu tio n, thetr ans mit tal ofa cri min al sta tement , s uchas a fra udu len t i nsu ran ce cla im, byma il fro m o ne cou ntytoan oth er, orth e o ccu rre nceofa cri min al con ver sat iononth e t ele pho ne bet wee n c oco nsp ira tor s i n t wo cou nti es, re sul ts in ven ue in eit herco unt y.” ). On e c omment ato r a rgu ed tha t t he rea son ingofth e 3 App ell ateDi vis ion , b y whic h “ Car vaj al’ s c ons tru cti ve pre sen ce in NewYo rk was bo ots tra ppe d i ntodo min ionan d con tro l o verco cai ne loc ate d i n C ali for nia , b ord ers on Kaf kae squ e.” Abra hamAb ram ovs ky, A Boo tst rapTo o F ar: Con str uct ivePr ese nce , C ons tru cti ve Pos ses sio n, N.Y . L .J. , Jan . 1 0, 200 5. Ac cor din g t o Abramov sky , “ Uti liz ing con str uct ivepr ese ncetoes tab lis h c ons tru cti ve pos ses sio n is oneco nst ruc tio n t oo man y.” I d. 11 1 Car vaj al’ s c onv ict iononth e g rou nd tha t “ [a] n e lementof 2 [th e p oss ess ion ] o ffe nse [s] ” o ccu rre d w ith in NewYo rk 3 Sta te. C arv aja l, 786 N. Y.S .2dat45 4, 457 ; s ee als o N .Y. 3 4 Cri m. Pro c. Law§ 20. 20( 1)( a). 5 Car vaj al sou ght , a nd was gr ant ed, le avetoap pea l t o 6 theNe w Y orkCo urtofAp pea ls. App. R. Ex . H . Cit ingNe w 7 Yor k l aw, Ca rva jal ’s mer its br iefar gue d t hathi s t ria l 8 suf fer ed fro m a“f und ame nta l, non wai vab le def ectinth e m ode 9 of pro cedure ,” Peo plev. Pa tte rso n, 39 N.Y .2d28 8, 295 10 (19 76) : t hatNe w Y orkla cke d j uri sdi cti on to pro sec utehi m 11 forth e p oss ess ionof fen ses . App . R . E x. I a t 2 . Sta rti ngTh e i nte rme dia te sta te cou rt con clu dedth at an 4 ele men t o f t he pos ses sio n o ffe nsedi d o ccu r i n N ew Yor k. But , t he NewYo rk Cou rt of App eal s i nvo ked“p rin cip les of jud ici al res tra int ” a s i ts rat ion alefo r d ecl ini ng to dec ide whe the r j uri sdi cti on was es tab lis hedun derNe w Y orkCr imi nal Pro cedureLa w §20 .20 (a) (1) . It app ear s t hatth e N ew Yor k Cou rt of App eal s w as rel uct anttoen dor se theid ea tha t a n ind ivi dua l l oca tedinCa lif orn ia sho uldbede eme d t o h ave act ed in NewYo rk forpu rpo ses ofob tai nin g j uri sdi cti on 12 1 fro m t he pro pos iti on tha t “ ter rit ori al jur isd ict ion 2 imp lic ate s t he [s] tat e’s in her entau tho rit y t o p ros ecu te and 3 pun isha sus pec t f or all ege d c rim ina l c onduct ,” theNe w Y ork 4 Cou rt of App eal s h eldth at, th oug h ade fen dan t may wai ve 5 pro perve nuean d t he opp ort uni ty to requir e t he pro sec uto r 6 to pro ve theex ist enc e o f j uri sdi cti on to a j urybe yon d a 7 rea son abl e d oub t, “th e f und ame nta l ques tio n whet her --a s a 8 mat terofla w-- [Ne w Y ork ] S tat e h as thepo wertohe ar the 9 cas e” can notbewa ive d. Pe opl e v . C arv aja l, 6 N .Y. 3d 305 , 10 312 (2 005 ) ( Kay e, C.J .). Reac hin g t he mer its , h owe ver , t he 11 cou rt uph eldth e S tat e’s ex erc iseofju ris dic tio n o verth e 12 pos ses sio n o ffe nse s. Id . a t 3 13. 13 TheNe w Y orkCo urtofAp pea ls dec lin ed to res t i ts 14 dec isi on on N.Y . C rim . P roc . L aw § 2 0.2 0(1 )(a ), on whi ch the 15 low er sta te cou rts ha d r eli ed. P erh aps be cau se 16 § 2 0.2 0(1 )(a ) r equ ire s t hatanel eme nt of theof fen se tak e 17 pla ce in NewYo rk, th e N ew Yor k C our t o f Appe als in ste ad 4ove r apo sse ssi on off ens e b y v irt ue of thefa ct tha t h e h ad

pho ne con ver sat ion s w ithin div idu als inNe w Y ork . 13 1 fou nde d j uri sdi cti on on § 2 0.2 0(1 )(c ), Car vaj al, 6 N.Y .3dat 2 312 -13 , whic h p rov ide s: 3 [A] pe rso n may be con vic tedinth e c rim ina l c our ts 4 of [Ne w Y orkSt ate ] o f a n o ffe nsede fin ed by the 5 law s o f [ NewYo rk Sta te] , c omm itt ed eit herbyhi s 6 ownco ndu ct or by theco ndu ct of ano the r f or whi ch 7 he is leg all y a cco unt abl e . . . when : 8 9 1. Con duc t o ccu rre d w ith in thi s s tat e 10 suf fic ien t t o e sta bli sh: 1 1 12 . . . . 13 14 (c) A con spi rac y o r c rim ina l s oli cit ati on 15 to commitsu ch off ens e, or oth erw iseto 16 est abl ishth e c omp lic ityofatle aston e 17 of thepe rso ns lia bleth ere for ; p rov ide d 18 tha t t he jur isd ict ionac cor dedbyth is 19 par agr aphex ten ds onl y t o c onv ict ionof 20 tho se per son s whos e c ons pir ato ria l o r 21 oth er con duc t o f c omp lic ityoc cur red 22 wit hin[N ew Yor k S tat e]. 23 24 N.Y . C rim . P roc . L aw § 2 0.2 0(1 )(c ). Th e c our t d ete rmi ned 25 tha t t his ju ris dic tio nal re qui rementwa s s ati sfi ed bec aus e 26 “wh ilehewa s p res entin ” N ew Yor k “ bot h p hys ica llyan d b y 27 tel eph one ,” Car vaj al “co nsp ire d w ithhi s a cco mpl ice s a nd 28 eng age d i n o ver t a cts infu rth era nceof the ir po sse ssi on of 29 sig nif ica nt qua nti tie s o f c oca inean d t hei r p lanto 30 tra nsp ortth e c oca inetoNe w Y ork .” Ca rva jal , 6 N. Y.3 d a t 31 315 (e mph asi s a dde d). T he cou rt den iedth at thi s a nal ysi s14 1 amo unt ed to jur isd ict ion al “bo ots tra ppi ng. ” Id. at31 6. 2 Fin all y, theNe w Y orkCo urtofAp pea ls obs erv ed tha t 3 Car vaj al “ne veral leg ed anyco nst itu tio nal vi ola tio n, 4 fed era l o r s tat e, con cer nin g h is pro sec uti on by NewYo rk. ” 5 Id. T he cou rt thu s i ndi cat ed tha t i ts dec isi on was gr oun ded 6 sol elyinanin ter pre tat ionofth e r ele van t p rov isi on of the 7 Sta te’ s j uri sdi cti ona l s tat ute . 8 Judge Geo rgeBu ndySm ith ’s for cef ul dis sen t a rgu ed: 9 [T] he Con sti tut ionofth e U nit ed Sta tes , t he 10 Con sti tut ionofth e S tat e o f N ew Yor k a nd thela ws 11 of theSt ateofNe w Y orkdono t p erm it a p ers on to 12 be fou nd gui ltyofcr imi nal po sse ssi on of a 13 con tro lle d s ubs tan ce on a t heo ry of con str uct ive 14 pos ses sio n r ath er tha n a ctu al pos ses sio n wher e 15 bot h t he sub sta ncean d t he def end antar e i n 16 Cal ifo rni a. 17 18 Car vaj al, 6 N.Y .3dat31 7 ( G.B . S mit h, J., di sse nti ng) . T he 19 dis sen t a lsoto ok thepo sit ionth at “[b ]ec aus e t err ito ria l 20 jur isd ict iongo es to theau tho rit y o f t he cou rt to trya 21 def end antfo r t he par tic ula r c rimes in iss ue, no 22 pre ser vat ionis ne ces sar y.” I d. at 322 . 23 Fol low ingth e a ffi rma ncebyth e N ew Yor k C our t o f 24 App eal s, Car vaj al fil ed prosea mot iontova cat e h is 25 con vic tio n. Se e N .Y. Cr im. Pr oc. La w §44 0.1 0; Car vaj al, 26 200 8 W L 4 555 531 , a t * 20. T he Sta te Sup reme C our t d eni ed the 27 mot ion , a nd theFi rstDe par tme nt den iedle avetoap pea l.15 1 Car vaj al, 20 08 WL 455 553 1, at *21 . Nex t, Car vaj al fil ed a 2 timelyap pli cat ionpr o s e f or a w ritofha bea s c orp us in the 3 Uni tedSt ate s D ist ric t C our t f or theSo uth ernDi str ictof 4 NewYo rk. Magi str ateJu dgePe ck iss ueda rep ort 5 rec ommend ingth at Car vaj al’ s a ppl ica tio n b e d eni ed butth at 6 a c ert ifi cat e o f a ppe ala bil itysh oul d i ssu e. Id . a t * 1. 7 Thema gis tra te judge pro cee dedonth e b asi s t hatth e 8 sta te cou rt hadad jud ica tedCa rva jal ’s fed era l 9 con sti tut ion al cla im on theme rit s. (I n s o d oin g, the 10 mag ist rat e j udg e o ver loo kedordi sco unt ed thest ate men t i n 11 theCo urtofAp pea ls’ op ini on tha t i ts dec isi on was gr oun ded 12 sol elyinst atest atu tor y l aw. ) Acc ord ing ly, th e magi str ate 13 judge ana lyz ed theju ris dic tio nal me rit s, giv ingde fer enc e 14 to thede cis ionofth e N ew Yor k C our t o f Appe als . Id. at 15 *25 ; s ee als o J ime nez v. Wa lke r, 458 F. 3d 130 , 1 46 (2dCi r. 16 200 6). T he mag ist rat e j udg e c onc lud ed tha t t he dec isi on of 17 theNe w Y orkCo urtofAp pea ls was no t c ont rar y t o, or an 18 unr eas ona bleap pli cat ionof , c lea rlyes tab lis hedSu pre me 19 Cou rt pre ced ent . Car vaj al, 20 08 WL 455 553 1, at *25 . The 20 rel eva nt Sup reme C our t p rec ede nt ide nti fie d b y t he 21 mag ist rat e j udg e i s S tra ssh eimv. Da ily , 2 21 U.S . 2 80 22 (19 11) , whic h h eld : “Ac ts don e o uts idea jur isd ict ion , b ut16 1 int end ed to pro duc e a nd pro duc ingde tri men tal ef fec ts wit hin 2 it, ju sti fy a s tat e i n p uni shi ng theca useofth e h armas if 3 he hadbe en pre sen t a t t he eff ect , i f t he sta te sho uld 4 suc cee d i n g ett inghi m w ith in its po wer .” Id . a t 2 85. T he 5 mag ist rat e j udg e c onc lud ed: “whet herorno t t he NewYo rk 6 Cou rt of App eal s p rop erl y i nte rpr ete d t he sta te [Cr imi nal 7 Pro cedureLa w’s ] l ong -arm p rov isi ons , a s ama tte r o f f ede ral 8 con sti tut ion al law , [ he cou ld not ] s ay tha t t he NewYo rk 9 Cou rt of App eal s’ dec isi on was ‘c ont rar y t o’ or an 10 ‘un rea son abl e a ppl ica tio n’ of Sup reme C our t p rec ede nt. ” 11 Car vaj al, 20 08 WL 455 553 1, at *33 . 12 Thedi str ictju dgead opt ed there commen dat ionofth e 13 mag ist rat e j udg e, obs erv ingina sup ple men tal me mor andum 14 tha t t he maj ori ty opi nio n o f t he NewYo rk Cou rt of App eal s 15 “sp eci fic all y r efu sedtoen ter tai n a ny dis cus sio n o f f ede ral 16 con sti tut ion al law , o n t he gro undth at pet iti one r h ad fai led 17 to rai se anyfe der al con sti tut ion al cha lle ngetoth e t ria l 18 cou rt’ s e xer cis e o f j uri sdi cti on. ” Car vaj al v. Art us, No . 19 07 Civ . 1 063 5 ( CM) (A JP) , 2 009 WL62 177 , a t * 2 ( S.D .N. Y. 20 Jan . 9 , 2 009 ). Th e d ist ric t j udg e r eco gni zedth at “th e N ew 21 Yor k C our t o f Appe als ’ i nte rpr eta tio n o f [ Cri min al Pro cedure 22 Lawse cti on 20. 20( 1)( c)] is th e l astwo rd on wha t t hatT his Co urtap poi nte d c oun sel tore pre sen t C arv aja l 5 on app eal . SeeAp pel lat e D oc. En tryDa te Sep t. 22, 20 09. 17 1 [s] tat e s tat uteme ans .” Id . Sti ll, th e c our t c ons ide red 2 tha t, alt hou gh thi s p roc edu ral po stu re wou ld normal ly bar 3 rel ief(u nle ss Car vaj al cou ld dem ons tra te cau se forhi s 4 def aul t i n s tat e c our t a nd res ult ingpr eju dic e), “[ t]h e 5 iss ue is mor e c onf usi ng tha n u sua l i n t his pa rti cul ar cas e” 6 giv en thest ateco urt ’s rul ingth at jur isd ict ionca nno t b e 7 wai ved . Id. T hus th e s tat e c our t’s as ser tio n t hatst ate 8 sta tut oryju ris dic tio n c an nev er be wai vedwa s t rea tedby 9 thedi str ictco urtas a “su b s ile nti o d ete rmi nat ionof 10 fed era l c ons tit uti ona l l aw” --d esp iteth e s tat e c our t’s 11 dis cla ime r “ tha t i t w as notco nsi der ingan y s uchis sue .” 12 Id. at*3 n. 1 ( int ern al quo tat ionma rks om itt ed) . 13 Acc ord ing ly, th e d ist ric t c our t i ssu ed a c ert ifi cat e o f 14 app eal abi lit y “ lim ite d t o t he iss ue of whe the r N ew Yor k 15 lac kedte rri tor ial ju ris dic tio n t o t ry pet iti one r f or the 16 thr ee cou nts ofcr imi nal po sse ssi on of a c ont rol led 17 sub sta nce .” I d. at *5. 5 18 DIS CUS SION 19 20 I 21 22 We rev iewdeno vo a d ist ric t c our t’s de nia l o f awr it18 1 of hab eas co rpu s. Co ttov. He rbe rt, 33 1 F .3d21 7, 229 (2 d 2 Cir . 2 003 ). Th e Anti ter ror isman d E ffe cti ve Dea th Pen alt y 3 Actof19 96 (“AEDPA”) pr ovi des th at a s tat e p ris one r may 4 see k h abe as cor pus re lie f i n f ede ral co urt“o n t he gro und 5 tha t h e i s i n c ust odyinvi ola tio n o f t he Con sti tut ion. . . 6 of theUn ite d S tat es. ” 28 U.S .C. § 225 4(a ). Ho wev er, 7 bef orea fed era l c our t c an con sid er a h abe as app lic ati on 8 bro ugh t b y ast atepr iso ner , t he hab eas ap pli can t must 9 exh aus t a ll of his st atere med ies . Id. § 225 4(b )(1 )(A ). 10 “[E ]xh aus tio n o f s tat e r eme die s r equ ire s t hat[a ] p eti tio ner 11 fai rlypr ese nt fed era l c lai ms to thest ateco urt s i n o rde r 12 to giv e t he [s] tat e t he opp ort uni ty to pas s u ponan d c orr ect 13 all ege d v iol ati ons ofit s p ris one rs’ fe der al rig hts .” 14 Dun canv. He nry , 5 13 U.S . 3 64, 36 5 ( 199 5) (pe r c uri am) 15 (ci tin g P ica rd v. Con nor , 4 04 U.S . 2 70, 27 5 ( 197 1) (in ter nal 16 quo tat ionma rks an d a lte rat ion s o mit ted )); se e a lsoLu riev. 17 Wit tne r, 228 F. 3d 113 , 1 24 (2dCi r. 200 0). T he exh aus tio n 18 requir eme nt is ani mat ed by “no tio ns of com itybe twe en the 19 fed era l a nd [s] tat e j udi cia l s yst ems .” St rog ov v. Att orn ey 20 Gen . o f N .Y. , 1 91 F.3 d 1 88, 19 1 ( 2d Cir . 1 999 ). Tr ue, a 21 sta te pri son er is notre qui redtoci te “ch apt er andve rseof 22 theCo nst itu tio n” in ord er to sat isf y t his re qui rement , D aye19 1 v. Att orn ey Gen . o f N .Y. , 6 96 F.2 d 1 86, 19 4 ( 2d Cir . 1 982 ) 2 (inba nc) ; s til l, he mus t p res enthi s c hal len ge in terms 3 tha t a re “li kel y t o a ler t t he [st ate ] c our t[s ] t o t he 4 cla im’ s f ede ral na tur e.” L uri e, 228 F. 3d at 124 (quot ing 5 Day e, 696 F. 2d at 192 ). A pet iti one r may sat isf y t he fai r 6 pre sen tat ionre qui rementby : 7 (a) re lia nceonpe rti nen t f ede ral ca ses emplo yin g 8 con sti tut ion al ana lys is, (b ) r eli anc e o n s tat e 9 cas es emp loy ingco nst itu tio nal an aly sis inli ke 10 fac t s itu ati ons , ( c) ass ert ionofth e c lai m i n 11 terms so par tic ula r a s t o c all tomi nd a s pec ifi c 12 rig ht pro tec tedbyth e C ons tit uti on, an d ( d) 13 all ega tio n o f apa tte rn of fac ts tha t i s w ell 14 wit hinth e main str eamofco nst itu tio nal 15 lit iga tio n. 16 17 Day e, 696 F. 2d at 194 . 18 If a h abe as app lic antfa ils toex hau st sta te remedi es 19 by fai lin g t o a dequat elypr ese nt his fe der al cla im to the 20 sta te cou rts soth at thest ateco urt s w oul d d eemth e c lai m 21 pro cedura llyba rre d, we “mu st dee m t he cla im[ ] p roc edu ral ly 22 def aul ted .” Ap ari ciov. Ar tuz , 2 69 F.3 d 7 8, 90 (2dCi r. 23 200 1) (no tin g t he “ap par entsa lve ” o f d eem inga cla im not 24 pre sen tedinst ateco urtex hau ste d i s “ col d c omf ort ”). O ur 25 dis mis sal ofanap pli cat ionfo r h abe as rel iefonth e g rou nd 26 of pro cedura l d efa ultam oun ts to “a dis pos iti on of the 27 hab eas cl aimonth e meri ts. ” Id. An a ppl ica nt see kin g20 1 hab eas re lie f may esc apedi smi ssa l o n t he mer its ofa 2 pro cedura llyde fau lte d c lai m o nlybyde mon str ati ng “ca use 3 forth e d efa ultan d p rej udi ce” orbysh owi ng tha t h e i s 4 “ac tua llyin noc ent ” o f t he cri me forwh ichhewa s c onv ict ed. 5 Id. 6 II 7 Whe n aha bea s a ppl ica nt fai ls to exh aus t h is fed era l 8 con sti tut ion al cla im in sta te cou rt- -an d t her e h as bee n n o 9 sho win g o f c aus e a nd pre jud iceorac tua l i nno cen ce- -th is 10 Cou rt wil l g ene ral ly be bar redfr om gra nti ng hab eas re lie f. 11 SeeGr ay v. Net her lan d, 518 U. S. 152 , 1 61- 62 (19 96) . Her e, 12 how eve r, Car vaj al arg ues th at thepr ose cut ionfo rfe ite d a ny 13 def ens e t hatwo uldbeba sedonhi s p roc edu ral de fau lt by its 14 fai lur e t o r elyonth is gro undbe for e t he dis tri ct cou rt. 15 Thepr ose cut ionac kno wle dge s t hatitdi d n ot rel y o n a 16 pro cedura l d efa ultde fen se in thedi str ictco urtbu t u rge s 17 us non eth ele ss to con sid er whe the r C arv aja l f ail ed to rai se 18 his ju ris dic tio nal ch all eng e i n f ede ral co nst itu tio nal te rms 19 in thest ateco urt s, andis th us bar redfr om obt ain ing 20 rel iefinth is Cou rt. 21 Pri or to AED PA, a sta te was “n ormall y . . . o bli gat ed 22 to rai se andpr ese rve ” t he pro cedura l d efa ultde fen se.21 1 Tre st v. Cai n, 522 U. S. 87, 89 (1 997 ) ( int ern al quo tat ion 2 mar ks andal ter ati ons om itt ed) . At thesame time, it was 3 cle ar tha t afe der al app ell ateco urtwa s “ notob lig ate d t o 4 reg ardth e [ pro sec uti on’ s] omi ssi on [ofth e d efe nse ] a s a n 5 abs olu te wai verofth e c lai m.” G ran ber ry v. Gre er, 48 1 U .S. 6 129 , 1 33 (19 87) ; s ee als o W ash ing tonv. James , 9 96 F.2 d 7 144 2, 144 8 ( 2d Cir . 1 993 ). AE DPAexpre ssl y p rov ide s t hat 8 the“[ s]t atesh all no t b e d eemed to hav e w aiv ed the 9 exh aus tio nre qui rementorbees top pedfr om rel ian ce upo n t he 10 requir eme nt unl ess th e [ s]t ate , t hro ughco uns el, exp res sly 11 wai ves th e r equ ire men t.” 2 8 U .S. C. § 2 254 (b) (3) (e mph asi s 12 add ed) . Oth er cou rts ofap pea ls hav e b een“p ers uad ed tha t 13 § 2 254 (b) (3) ap pli es wit h f ull fo rceinca ses . . . wh ere 14 thepr oce dur al barar ise s o nlyas a dir ectre sul t o f t he 15 pet iti one r’s fa ilu re to exh aus t h is sta te lawre med ies .” 16 McN airv. Cambe ll, 41 6 F .3d12 91, 13 05 (11 th Cir . 2 005 ); see 17 als o E lli s v . H arg ett , 3 02 F.3 d 1 182 , 1 189 (1 0thCi r. 200 2); 18 Fra nkl in v. Joh nso n, 290 F. 3d 122 3, 123 8 ( 9thCi r. 200 2) 19 (O’ Sca nnl ain , J ., con cur rin g). W e a re per sua dedth at whe n a 20 sta te’ s p roc edu ral de fau lt arg ume nt is pre dic ate d o n a 21 hab eas ap pli can t’s fa ilu re to exh aus t ( as is theca se her e), 22 we mayco nsi dersu ch an arg ume nt forth e f irs t t imeon22 1 app eal un les s i t w as exp res sly wa ive d i n t he dis tri ct cou rt. 2 SeeFr ank lin , 2 90 F.3 d a t 1 238 . Thi s i s ast rin gen t 3 requir eme nt. W aiv er by nat uremu st be kno win g a nd 4 int ent ion al; expre ss wai verwo uldse em to requir e t hatth ese 5 fea tur es be mad e mani fes t. 6 Thepr ose cut ion ’s bri ef bef oreth e d ist ric t c our t s eem s 7 to mak e a n e rro neo us con ces sio n r ega rdi ng exh aus tio n. D. 8 Ct. Do c. No. 10 at28 . Bu t i t t hengo es on to arg ue- -ina 9 sec tio n o f i ts bri ef ent itl ed: “I f t his Co urtWe re to 10 Ove rlo ok thePr oce dur al Bar , P eti tio ner ’s Cla ims Pr ese nt No 11 Bas is forHa bea s Reli ef” --t hatCa rva jal ’s cla im doe s n ot 12 pre sen t aba sis fo r h abe as rel iefbe cau se “[a ]ll ege d e rro rs 13 of sta te sub sta nti ve lawar e n ot rev iew abl e i n afe der al 14 hab eas pr oce edi ng. ” D. Ct. Do c. No. 10 at47 -48 . 15 Pre -AE DPA , w e r eas one d: 16 [E] venifth e g ove rnment ’s err one ous co nce ssi on 17 reg ard ingex hau sti on canbeta kenas a con ces sio n 18 reg ard ingpr oce dur al def aul t, we bel iev e t hat 19 whe re suc h aco nce ssi on con sti tut es mer elyan 20 inn oce nt err or, th ereis noan aly tic al or pol icy 21 rea sontotr eatitan y d iff ere ntl y t hana fai lur e 22 to rai se thede fen se at all . 23 24 Was hin gto n, 996 F. 2d at 144 8. Th at ana lys is app lie s w ith 25 inc rement al for ce pos t-AEDPA: cir cum sta nce s may be 26 con sid ere d i n d eci din g whet herwa ive r i s s uff ici ent ly23 1 cat ego ric al. S ee Mag oui rk v. Phi lli ps, 14 4 F .3d34 8, 359 2 (5t h C ir. 19 98) (s tat ingth at the“n atu re of thest ate ’s 3 all ege d ‘ wai ver ’ s hou ld be giv en con sid era tio n” in ass ess ing 4 whe the r “ suasp ont e r eli anc e u pona pro cedura l d efa ult ” i s 5 app rop ria te) . As oth er cou rts ha ve obs erv ed, “AEDPA d oes 6 notexpla in howa sta te ‘expre ssl y w aiv es’ th e e xha ust ion 7 requir eme nt, bu t . . . ‘ [w] aiv er’ is tr adi tio nal ly def ine d 8 as an ‘in ten tio nal re lin qui shmentorab and onmentofa kno wn 9 rig ht. ” D’Ambr osi o v . B agl ey, 52 7 F .3d48 9, 495 (6 th Cir . 10 200 8). W e j ointh e r eas oni ng of at lea st oneot hersi ste r 11 cou rt of app eal s i n r equ iri ng a “ str ing entst and ardfo r 12 pro vin g w aiv er of exh aus tio n” bec aus e s ucha sta nda rd is 13 “squar elyinli ne wit h t he und erl yin g p urp ose s o f t he 14 exh aus tio n r equ ire men t.” D reh er v. Pin cha k, 61 F. App ’x 15 800 , 8 03 (3dCi r. 200 3) (un pub lis hedop ini on) . Ind eed , 16 “[p ]ri nci ple s o f c omi ty andfe der ali sm bea r o n t he rel ati ons 17 bet wee n c our t s yst ems , a nd tho se rel ati ons wi ll be aff ect ed 18 whe the r o r n ot theli tig ant s h avera ise d t he iss ue 19 the mse lve s.” W ash ing ton , 9 96 F.2 d a t 1 448 ; s ee als o A cos ta 20 v. Art uz, 22 1 F .3d11 7, 121 (2 d C ir. 20 00) . 21 In lig ht of theequiv oca l w ord inginth e p ros ecu tio n’s 22 bri ef bef oreth e d ist ric t c our t, andre cog niz ingth at “AE DPARe spo nde nt urg es thi s C our t t o d ecl inetore achth e 6 mer its ofCa rva jal ’s fed era l c ons tit uti ona l c lai m f or a dif fer entre aso n. Th e p ros ecu tio n c ont end s t hatou r r evi ew is bar redbe cau se thede cis ionofth e s tat e c our t r est s o n an ade qua te andin dep end entst ategr oun d. Re cog niz ingth at 24 1 dis fav ors a sta te wai verofex hau sti on, ” L uri e, 228 F. 3d at 2 123 , w e d ecl inetore ad thepr ose cut ion ’s con ces sio n a s 3 wai ver exp res swi thi n t he mea nin g o f 2 8 U .S. C. § 2 254 (b) (3) . 4 Seeid ., 228 F. 3d at 123 (“ Wha tev er cou nse l w as say ing , w e 5 do notre ad it as an ‘expre ss’ wa ive r o f t he exh aus tio n 6 requir eme nt. ”); se e a lsoCa rtyv. Th ale r, 583 F. 3d 244 , 2 56 7 (5t h C ir. 20 09) (“ Theto uch sto ne forde termin ingwh eth er a 8 wai veris expre ss is thecl ari ty of thein ten t t o w aiv e.” 9 (in ter nal qu ota tio n mark s o mit ted )). T rue , t he pro sec uti on 10 didno t p res s t he pro cedura l d efa ultde fen se bef oreth e 11 dis tri ct cou rt; ne ver the les s, thepr ose cut ionis no t 12 “es top pedfr om rel ian ce upo n t he requir eme nt” be for e t his 13 Cou rt. 2 8 U .S. C. § 2 254 (b) (3) . 14 III 15 Thest ateco urt s e vid ent ly und ers too d C arv aja l’s 16 jur isd ict ion al arg ume nt as a c hal len ge to theSt ate ’s 17 sta tut oryju ris dic tio n u nde r N ew Yor k C rim ina l P roc edu re Law 18 sec tio n 2 0.2 0. Ap ply ingth e D ayefa cto rs, weco ncl udeth at 19 no federa l cl aimwa s f air ly pre sen tedtoth e s tat e c our ts. 6the“a dequac y [ of a s tat e l aw gro undofde cis ion ] i s i tse lf

a f ede ral qu est ion ,” Leev. Ke mna , 5 34 U.S . 3 62, 37 5 ( 200 2), theSu pre me Cou rt has “a ppl iedth e i nde pen den t a nd ade qua te sta te gro unddo ctr ine. . . inde cid ingwh eth er fed era l . . . c our ts sho uldad dre ss thecl aim s o f s tat e p ris one rs in hab eas co rpu s a cti ons ,” Col ema n v . T hompso n, 501 U. S. 722 , 729 (1 991 ). Th is doc tri ne app lie s whena sta te pri son er pre sen tsbo th fed era l a nd sta te cla ims toth e s tat e c our t andth e s tat e c our t d ecl ine s t o a ddr ess th e f ede ral cl aim s bec aus e i t i s p oss ibl e t o r estit s d eci sio n “ on a s tat e l aw gro undth at is ind epe nde nt of thefe der al que sti on and ade qua te to sup por t t he judgme nt. ” Id. U nde r t hos e cir cum sta nce s, whe n t he sta te cou rt “cl ear ly andexpre ssl y” rel ies ona sta te lawgr oun d i n r end eri ng its de cis ion , w e wil l n ot gra nt a w ritofha bea s c orp us. I d. at 735 . The ade qua te andin dep end entst ategr oun ds doc tri ne, ho wev er, has noap pli cat ionhe re. T he ade qua te andin dep end entst ate lawgr oun ds doc tri ne “as sumes tha t ast ateco urtha d t he opp ort uni ty to add res s acl aimth at is lat er rai sedina fed era l h abe as pro cee din g. Itis si mpl y i nap pli cab le in a cas e s uchas th is one , wher e t he cla im was ne verpr ese nte d to thest ateco urt s.” T eag ue v. Lan e, 489 U. S. 288 , 2 99 (19 89) . Per hap s n ot sur pri sin gly , t he con fla tio n o f a n ade qua te andin dep end entst atela w g rou nd of dec isi on anda pro cedura l d efa ultba sedona hab eas ap pli can t’s fa ilu re to rai se a f ede ral is suebe for e t he sta te cou rts ap pea rs to als o h aveca use d c onf usi on in thedi str ictco urt . Car vaj al, 200 9 W L 6 217 7, at *2. 25 1 Car vaj al’ s c hal len ge was co nsi ste ntl y e xpr ess ed as an 2 arg ume nt tha t t he NewYo rk cou rts er redinco nst rui ng the 3 per tin ent sta teju ris dic tio nal st atu tes . He poi nte d t o n o 4 fed era l c ons tit uti ona l p rov isi on tha t m igh t a ler t t he sta te 5 cou rts th at his cl aimwa s f ede ral inna tur e. Ra the r, he 6 rel iedonst ateco urtde cis ion s i nte rpr eti ng sta te sta tut ory 7 law . Car vaj al didno t i nvo ke “pe rti nen t f ede ral ca ses26 1 emp loy ingco nst itu tio nal an aly sis ,” nordi d h e s eeksu ppo rt 2 forhi s c ont ent ionfr om “st ateca ses emplo yin g 3 con sti tut ion al ana lys is in lik e f actsi tua tio ns. ” Day e, 696 4 F.2 d a t 1 94. O f c our se, itis ha rd to fau lt Car vaj al for 5 fai lin g t o p oin t t o a“l ikefa ct sit uat ion []. ” As the 6 App ell ateDi vis ionre cog niz ed, th is was anun usu al useof 7 Cri min al Pro cedureLa w s ect ion20 .20 . Car vaj al, 78 6 8 N.Y .S. 2d at 454 . How eve r, “[i ]t is notth e p rov inc e o f a 9 fed era l h abe as cou rt to ree xam inest ate -co urtde termin ati ons 10 on sta te- lawqu est ion s. [S ]ta te cou rts ar e t he ult ima te 11 exp osi tor s o f s tat e l aw. ” Man nixv. Ph ill ips , 6 19 F.3 d 1 87, 12 199 (2 d C ir. 20 10) (i nte rna l quot ati on mar ks andci tat ion 13 omi tte d); se e a lsoTu nic k v . S afi r, 209 F. 3d 67, 76 (2 d C ir. 14 200 0) (“T h[e ] ques tio n o f t he ext enttowh ichth e s tat e 15 cou rt cangowh en int erp ret ingit s o wn law s i s 16 par adi gma tic all y o ne of sta te law [.] ” ( int ern al quo tat ion 17 mar ks omi tte d)) . Eve n i f t his Co urtvi ews th e s tat e c our t’s 18 int erp ret ati on of its st atest atu te as unw ise , o r e venas 19 jur isd ict ion al ove rre ach ing , t his do es noten tit le Car vaj al 20 to hab eas re lie f. Se e S war tho ut v. Coo ke, No . 1 0-3 33, 56 2 21 U.S . - --, 20 11 WL 197 627 , a t * 2 ( Jan . 2 4, 201 1) (pe r 22 cur iam ).27 1 TheNe w Y orkCo urtofAp pea ls rul ed tha t t he que sti on 2 whe the r N ew Yor k h ad jur isd ict iontopr ose cut e C arv aja l 3 cou ld notbewa ive d. Ca rva jal , 6 N. Y.3 d a t 3 12. W e d o n ot 4 und ers tan d t his co ncl usi on as a r uli ng on fed era l l aw. Read 5 in con tex t, theNe w Y orkCo urtofAp pea ls was ev ide ntl y 6 opi nin g o n ama tte r o f s tat e l aw; pu t s imp ly, th e N ew Yor k 7 cou rt rul ed- -as a mat terofst atela w-- tha t t he pow er of a 8 sta te cou rt to actis no t a n i ssu e t hatca n b e w aiv ed eve n 9 if a d efe nda nt wai ves th e r igh t t o r equ ireth e p ros ecu tio n 10 to pro ve theju ris dic tio nal el eme nt to a j urybe yon d a 11 rea son abl e d oub t. Id . a t 3 11- 12. I t i s w ith in thepr ovi nce 12 of theNe w Y orkCo urtofAp pea ls to con str ue the 13 jur isd ict ion al sta tut e p ass ed by theNe w Y orkSt ate 14 leg isl atu re. S ee Peo plev. Ka sse baum, 95 N.Y .2d61 1, 617 -18 15 (20 01) . TheNe w Y orkCo urtofAp pea ls has ma de pla in tha t 16 it und ers tan ds thest atu tor y j uri sdi cti ona l p rov isi on to 17 hav e “ sup pla nte d” the“c omm on- lawte rri tor ial pr inc ipl e” and 18 to hav e “ bro ade n[e d] thete rri tor ial sc opeofcr imi nal 19 jur isd ict ion .” Id . a t 6 17; se e a lsoPe opl e v . S tok es, 88 20 N.Y .2d61 8, 624 (1 996 ) ( sta tin g “ [t] he sta rti ng poi nt for 21 the[s ]ta te’ s j uri sdi cti on in cri min al cas es is of cou rse 22 thete rri tor ial pr inc ipl e d eri vedfr om theco mmo n l aw, ” b utTh ereis ve ry lit tlest ateca se lawin ter pre tin g N ew 7 Yor k C rim ina l P roc edu re Lawse cti on 20. 20( 1)( c). P rio r t o theNe w Y orkCo urtofAp pea ls’ de cis ioninth is cas e, at lea st onest atetr ial co urtde cli nedtogi ve an exp ans ive rea din g t o t he jur isd ict ion al pro vis ion :

ThePe opl e w oul d r ead[N ew Yor k C rim ina l P roc edu re Lawse cti on 20. 20( 1)( c)] as su bje cti ng sub sta nti ve cri mes co mmi tte d o ut of sta te to NewYo rk pro sec uti on mer elybe cau se the y a lle ged ly occ urr ed in fur the ran ce of a N ew Yor k c ons pir acy . The cou rt doe s n ot agr ee. Peo plev. Pu ig, 37 8 N .Y. S.2 d 9 25, 93 2 ( Sup . C t. N.Y . C o. 197 6). T he NewYo rk Cou rt of App eal s, how eve r, rea d s ect ion 20. 20( 1)( c) in pre cis elyth e mann er thest atetr ial co urtin Pui g e sch ewe d: “P lai nly , j uri sdi cti on ove r a n o ffe nse exi sts ba sedona con spi rac y o ccu rri ng in NewYo rk to commit tha t o ffe nse .” Ca rva jal , 6 N. Y.3 d a t 3 13. 28 1 tha t “ [t] his pr inc ipl e h as bee n s upp lan tedby[s ]ta te 2 sta tut es bro ade nin g t he ter rit ori al pri nci pleofcr imi nal 3 jur isd ict ion ”). Whet herweag reewi th NewYo rk’ s 4 int erp ret ati on andap pli cat ionofit s s tat e j uri sdi cti ona l 5 sta tut e i s n eit herhe re north ere ; ou r d isa gre eme nt wou ld 7 6 notinan y e ven t e nti tleCa rva jal tore lie f. 7 TheSu pre me Cou rt “do ubt [s] th at a d efe nda nt’ s c ita tio n 8 to a s tat e-c our t d eci sio n p red ica tedso lel y o n s tat e l aw 9 ord ina ril y w ill besu ffi cie nt to fai rlyap pri se a r evi ewi ng 10 cou rt of a p ote nti al fed era l c lai m.” Ande rso n v . H arl ess , 11 459 U. S. 4, 7 n .3 (19 82) (p er cur iam ). Inli ghtofth at 12 gui dan ce, inre cog nit ionof“o ur dua l j udi cia l s yst em, ” a ndTh e ques tio n o f whet herCa rva jal ’s cou nse l w as 8 ine ffe cti ve in fai lin g t o h oldth e p ros ecu tio n t o i ts bur den of pro vin g j uri sdi cti on bey onda rea son abl e d oub t i s n ot bef oreus . “[ W]h erea con sti tut ion al vio lat ionha s p rob abl y 9 res ult ed in theco nvi cti on of onewh o i s act ual ly inn oce nt , a f ede ral ha bea s c our t may gra nt thewr it eve n i n t he abs enc e o f ash owi ng of cau se forth e p roc edu ral de fau lt. ” Smi th v. Mur ray , 4 77 U.S . 5 27, 53 7 ( 198 6) (in ter nal quo tat ionma rks om itt ed andempha sis ad ded ). Ac tua l inn oce nceme ans “f act ual in noc enc e, notme re leg al ins uff ici enc y.” B ous leyv. Un ite d S tat es, 52 3 U .S. 61 4, 623 29 1 outof“c onc ernfo r h arm oni ous re lat ion s b etw eenth e t wo 2 adj udi cat oryin sti tut ion s,” weca nno t f indth at Car vaj al 3 pro per ly pre sen tedhi s f ede ral cl aimtoth e s tat e c our ts in 4 a mann er tha t w oul d a llo w t his Co urttogr antre lie f. Da ye, 5 696 F. 2d at 191 ; s ee als o D iSi mon e v . P hil lip s, 461 F. 3d 6 181 , 1 90 (2dCi r. 200 6); Ga ldamez v. Ke ane , 3 94 F.3 d 6 8, 72- 7 73 (2dCi r. 200 5). 8 IV 9 Thefa ilu re of Car vaj al’ s c oun sel topr ess hi s 10 jur isd ict ion al obj ect ioninfe der al con sti tut ion al terms 11 “do es notco nst itu te cau se fora pro cedura l d efa ult .” 8 12 Mur rayv. Ca rri er, 47 7 U .S. 47 8, 486 (1 986 ). And , C arv aja l 13 has no t a rgu ed tha t h e i s “ act ual ly inn oce nt” (mean ing 14 fac tua llyin noc ent ) o f t he cri me forwh ichhewa s 15 con vic ted . Bou sle y v . U nit ed Sta tes , 5 23 U.S . 6 14, 62 2, 9(19 98) . Anyas ser tio n b y C arv aja l t hathewa s “ act ual ly

inn oce nt” wo uldne ces sar ilybeli mit ed to theid ea tha t h e was in noc entofdr ug pos ses sio n in New Yo rk : If he hadbe en pro sec ute d f or dru g p oss ess ioninCa lif orn ia, th ereis lit tledo ubtheco uldpr ope rlyha ve bee n c onv ict ed. TheSu pre me Cou rt has pr ovi dednogu ida nceonwh eth er a mer ito rio us cla im tha t t he sta te cou rt lac kedju ris dic tio n to pro sec utewo uldco nst itu te a c lai m o f “ act ual in noc enc e” forpu rpo ses ofse eki ng hab eas re lie f. IfJu dgeBu ndySm ith is rig ht tha t “ no NewYo rk cou rt cou ld [ha ve] ac qui red jur isd ict ionov er theth reeco unt s o f c rim ina l p oss ess ion bec aus e n o s uchcr imeoc cur redinNe w Y ork ,” Car vaj al, 6 N.Y .3dat32 8 ( G.B . S mit h, J., di sse nti ng) , C arv aja l’s jur isd ict ion al cla im mig ht be a s uff ici entba sis fr om whi ch he cou ld hav e a rgu ed tha t h e i s “ act ual ly inn oce nt” an d ent itl ed to hab eas re lie f. Itma y b e t hatco nvi cti on in New Yor k f or con duc t t hatis no t acr imeag ain st tha t s ove rei gn wou ld fal l w ith in the“n arr ow sco pe” ofth e “ mis car ria ge of jus tic e e xce pti on” as de fin ed by theSu pre me Cou rt. Cal der on v. Tho mps on, 52 3 U .S. 53 8, 559 (1 998 ). Bu t, bec aus e C arv aja l d oes no t p res s a n “ act ual in noc enc e” arg ume nt bef oreth is Cou rt, wede cli ne to res olv e t hes e o pen andve xin g ques tio ns andin ste ad res t o ur dec isi on on the gro und s p res ent ed to us. 30 1 623 (1 998 ). Acc ord ing ly, wemu st dis mis s C arv aja l’s 2 app lic ati on forha bea s r eli ef. Apar ici o, 269 F. 3d at 89- 90. 3 V 4 Car vaj al’ s a ppe al rel ies he avi ly on thedi sse nti ng 5 opi nio n o f Judg e B und y S mit h, whi ch too k t he vie w t hatNe w 6 Yor k l aw permit s c rim ina l p ros ecu tio n f or a d rugpo sse ssi on 7 off ens e o nlywh en thecr imi nal co ndu ct- -orso me con sequen ce 8 of theco ndu ct- -oc cur redwi thi n t he sta te. C arv aja l, 6 9 N.Y .3dat32 2-3 0 ( G.B . S mit h, J., di sse nti ng) . Thi s31 1 arg ume nt has su bst ant ial ap pea l. In dee d, Car vaj al’ s 2 con vic tio n i n N ew Yor k f or a c rime c omm itt ed who llyin 3 ano the r s tat e s eem s a nomalo us to us, as itdi d t o Judg e 4 Bun dy Smi th. H owe ver , w e h avenooc cas iontode cid e whet her 5 the re was er rorinth e s tat e c our t’s st atu tor y 6 int erp ret ati on bec aus e “ [i] t i s w ell es tab lis hedth at a 7 fed era l h abe as cou rt doe s n ot sittoco rre ct a 8 mis app lic ati on of sta te law , u nle ss suc h m isa ppl ica tio n 9 vio lat es theCo nst itu tio n, law s, or tre ati es of theUn ite d 10 Sta tes .” Po nna pul a v . S pit zer , 2 97 F.3 d 1 72, 18 2 ( 2d Cir . 11 200 2). “ [I] t i s o nlyno nco mpl ian ce wit h federa l la w t hat 12 ren der s a[s ]ta te’ s c rim ina l j udgmen t s usc ept ibl e t o 13 col lat era l a tta ck in thefe der al cou rts .” Wi lso n v . 14 Cor cor an, 13 1 S . C t. 13, 20 10 WL 439 413 7, at *2 (No v. 8, 15 201 0) (pe r c uri am) . 16 Judge Bun dy Smi th’ s d iss entis inma jorpa rt dir ect ed 17 to NewYo rk law . It doe s a ppe ar tha t t he Cou rt of App eal s’ 18 rul inginth is cas e may hav e b eena piv ot. C omp are 19 McL aug hli n, 80 N.Y .2dat47 1 ( pro vid ing“[ t]h e g ene ral ru le 20 in NewYo rk is tha t, forth e [ s]t atetoha ve cri min al 21 jur isd ict ion , eit her th e a lle ged

co ndu ct or som e c ons equ enc e 2 2 of itmu st hav e o ccu rre d w ith in the[s ]ta te” (e mph asi s32 1 add ed) ), andKa sse baum, 95 N.Y .2dat61 9 ( cha rac ter izi ng the 2 jur isd ict ion al inquir y a s “ whe the r t he Peo plees tab lis hed 3 tha t d efe nda nt andhi s a cco mpl ice s e nga gedinco ndu ct wit hin 4 New

Yo rksu ffi cie nt to est abl ishanel eme nt of att emp ted 5 cri min al pos ses sio n o f aco ntr oll ed sub sta nce ”), wi th 6 Car vaj al, 6 N.Y .3dat31 3 ( fin din g j uri sdi cti on ove r 7 pos ses sio nof fen se bec aus e “ the re was ev ide nceof 8 def end ant ’s con duc t i n N ew Yor k s uff ici enttoes tab lis h h is 9 con spi racy

toco mmi t f irs t d egr ee cri min al pos ses sio n o f a 10 con tro lle d s ubs tan ce” (e mph asi s a dde d)) . 11 In 192 5, the n-Judg e C ard ozoco ncl ude d t hatwh en a p lan 12 to commitla rce ny was ha tch ed in NewYo rk, bu t t he 13 “ex ecu tio n w as in oth er lan ds, ” N ew Yor k l ack ed jur isd ict ion 14 to pro sec utea par tic ipa nt in tha t c ons pir acyfo r l arc eny 15 commit tedab roa d. Pe opl e v . W erb low , 2 41 N.Y . 5 5, 58- 61 16 (19 25) . At thesame time, Wer blo w madeitcl earth at the 17 cou rt’ s c ons tru cti on of thest atu te was no t a“c ons equ enc e 18 of some i nhe ren t l imi tat ionup on thepo werofth e 19 Leg isl atu re. ” Id. A s ama tte r o f s tat e s tat uto ry 20 int erp ret ati on, th e W erb lowCo urtco ncl ude d t hatth e 21 jur isd ict ion al sta tut e w as notin ten dedtopr ovi de for“a nOn e c omment ato r h as obs erv ed tha t N ew Yor k “ cou ld 10 notva lid ly mak e i t acr imefo r i ts cit ize ns to ‘pl ay the slo t m ach ine s’ in Las Ve gas , N eva da, wh ereth is is law ful . Suc h ast atu te wou ld vio lat e t he ful l f ait h a nd cre dit cla use .” Ro lli n M . P erk ins , T he Ter rit ori al Pri nci plein Cri min al Law , 2 2 H ast ing s L .J. 11 55, 11 64 (19 70- 71) ; s ee als o U .S. Co nst . a rt. IV , §1. W e a re not , h owe ver , f ace d wit h s ucha cas e. 33 1 ext ens ionofju ris dic tio n u nti l n ow unk now n t o o ur law .” 10 2 Id. B ut eve n i f t he dec isi on of theNe w Y orkCo urtof 3 App eal s w erede eme d c ont rar y t o, or an unr eas ona ble 4 app lic ati on of, pr ior sta tepr ece den t, thi s w oul d n ot aid 5 Car vaj al’ s p osi tio n b efo re thi s C our t. “[ W]edono t d efe r 6 to [th e N ew Yor k C our t o f Appe als ’] int erp ret ati on of 7 federa l la w, butwear e b oun d b y i ts con str uct ionof New 8 Yorkla w.” P ort ala tinv. Gr aham, 624 F. 3d 69, 84 (2 d C ir. 9 201 0) (inba nc) . 10 Judge Bun dy Smi th’ s d iss ental so sta tes th at Car vaj al’ s 11 con vic tio n f or cri min al pos ses sio n o f aco ntr oll ed sub sta nce 12 was ob tai nedinvi ola tio n o f t he fed era l C ons tit uti on. I t 13 arg ues th at NewYo rk’ s e xer cis e o f j uri sdi cti on ove r t he 14 pos ses sio n c oun ts was a vio lat ionofAr tic le III , §2 and 15 theSi xthAmendmen t. Ca rva jal , 6 N. Y.3 d a t 3 21- 22 (G. B. 16 Smi th, J. , d iss ent ing ). Ho wev er, th e S upr emeCo urtha s m ade 17 it cle ar tha t A rti cleII I a nd theSi xthAmendmen t a re34 1 und ers too d a s v enu e p rov isi ons . Uni tedSt ate s v . C abr ale s, 2 524 U. S. 1, 6 ( 199 8); Wi lli ams v. Fl ori da, 39 9 U .S. 78 , 9 3 3 n.3 5 ( 197 0). Venu e, unl ikeju ris dic tio n p rop er, is su bje ct 4 to wai ver . See , e .g. , U nit ed Sta tes v. Ca lde ron , 2 43 F.3 d 5 587 , 5 90 (2dCi r. 200 1); Pe opl e v . Moor e, 46 N.Y .2d1, 10 6 (19 78) . Mor eov er, itap pea rs tha t “ theSu pre me Cou rt has 7 notde cid ed whe the r t he Six th Ame ndment ’s vic ina ge cla use 8 app lie s t o t he sta tes .” St eve nso n v . L ewi s, 384 F. 3d 106 9, 9 107 2 ( 9thCi r. 200 4); se e a lsoPe opl e v . G old swe r, 39 N.Y .2d 10 656 , 6 62 (19 76) (s tat ing“[ i]nFe der al pro sec uti ons 11 und oub ted ly ‘di str ict ’ mean s t he Fed era l j udi cia l d ist ric ts 12 est abl ish ed by Con gre ss” bu t, “[i ]t is noten tir elycl ear 13 wha t t his me ans in[s ]ta te pro sec uti ons , o r whet herinfa ct 14 it imp ose s a ny obl iga tio ns on the[s ]ta te to cre ateor 15 des ign atesu bdi vis ion s l imi tin g v enu e a nd vic ina ge wit hin 16 the[s ]ta te. ”). O ne thi ng is cle ar: C arv aja l n eve r 17 cha lle nge d h is pro sec uti on forcr imi nal po sse ssi on of a 18 con tro lle d s ubs tan ce on thegr oun d t hatitwa s i n v iol ati on 19 of his fe der al con sti tut ion al rig ht to pro perve nue . 20 On app eal , C arv aja l a lsoin vok es Str ass hei m ( ide nti fie d 21 by thema gis tra te judge as there lev antSu pre me Cou rt 22 pre ced ent ), whi ch hol ds tha t ast atema y p uni sh “[a ]ct s d one35 1 out sid e aju ris dic tio n, butin ten dedtopr odu ce and 2 pro duc ing

de tri men tal ef fec ts wit hinit .” 22 1 U .S. at28 5 3 (empha sis ad ded ). Bu t i t i s n ot evi den t t hatth is pas sag e 4 fro m S tra ssh eimis pr esc rip tiv e, andth at act ual ef fec ts are 5 requir ed to sup por t j uri sdi cti on. S o e venifCa rva jal ha d 6 rel iedonSt ras she im bef oreth e s tat e c our ts- -wh ichhedi d 7 not --w e a re notco nvi nce d t hathewo uldbeen tit ledto 8 rel ieffr om thi s C our t. As th e S upr emeCo urtofCa lif orn ia 9 has ob ser ved , “ theco nst itu tio nal li mit s o f s tat e c our ts’ 10 ext rat err ito ria l j uri sdi cti on in cri min al mat ter s h aveno t 11 bee n p rec ise ly del ine ate d, [bu t] it is cle ar tha t s tat es may 12 ext endth eirju ris dic tio n b eyo nd thena rro w l imi ts imp ose d 13 by theco mmo n l aw. ” Peo plev. Be tts , 1 03 P.3 d 8 83, 88 7 14 (Ca l. 200 5), ce rt. de nie d, 545 U. S. 113 3 ( 200 5). I n f act , 15 NewYo rk has up hel d t he exe rci se of ext rat err ito ria l 16 jur isd ict ioninsc ena rio s t hatdono t f all wi thi n t he 17 Str ass hei m t est , a nd no oneha s s ugg est ed tha t d oin g s o w as 18 a v iol ati on of thefe der al Con sti tut ion . Forex amp le, Ne w 19 Yor k r eco gni zes a the oryof“p rot ect ive ” j uri sdi cti on, 20 pur sua nt to whi ch “th e j uri sdi cti on of the[s ]ta te, oron e 21 of its co unt ies , may be exe rci sedov er con duc t o uts ideit s 22 geo gra phi cal bo rde rs whe re suc h c onductwa s i nte nde d t o h aveOt herst ate s h avedo ne lik ewi se. S ee, e. g., Be tts , 11 103 P. 3d at 887 (u pho ldi ng jur isd ict ionov er cri me commit ted in ano the r s tat e whenin ten t t o c omm it cri me formedin pro sec uti ng sta te) ; s ee als o C onn ect icu t v . C ardwel l, 718 A.2 d 9 54, 96 3 ( Con n. 199 8) (ob ser vin g “ tha t t he leg isl atu re has th e a uth ori ty to ena ct cri min al sta tut es tha t h avean ext rat err ito ria l e ffe ct” ); butcf . S tat e v . D udl ey, 61 4 S.E .2d62 3, 626 (S .C. 20 05) ; P eop le v. Blume, 50 5 N .W. 2d 843 , 8 44 (Mi ch. 19 93) (h old ing“M ich iga n may exe rci se ext rat err ito ria l j uri sdi cti on ove r a cts co mmi tte d o uts ide Mic hig an whe n t he act s a re int end ed to and doha ve a det riment al eff ectwi thi n t he sta te. ” ( emp has is add ed) ). 36 1 a d ele ter iou s e ffe ct wit hinit s t err ito ry. ” P eop le v. 11 2 Fea , 4 7 N .Y. 2d 70, 76 (1 979 ).

Ult ima tel y, ev en if Car vaj al hadfa irl y p res ent ed to 3 4 thest ateco urt s afe der al con sti tut ion al cha lle ngetoNe w 5 Yor k’s ex erc iseofju ris dic tio n, andth e s tat e c our ts had 6 rej ect ed tha t c lai m o n i ts mer its , i t i s n ot cle ar tha t w e 7 wou ld be emp owe redtogr antre lie f. Se e M ill er- El v. 8 Coc kre ll, 53 7 U .S. 32 2, 326 (2 003 ) ( sta tin g “ AED PA 9 con str ain s afe der al cou rt’ s p owe r t o d ist urbst ate -co urt 10 con vic tio ns” ). Weca nno t g ran t r eli ef “wi th res pec t t o a ny 11 cla im tha t w as adj udi cat ed on theme rit s i n [ s]t ateco urt 12 pro cee din gs” un les s t he adj udi cat ionofth at cla im “re sul ted 13 in a d eci sio n t hatwa s c ont rar y t o, or inv olv ed an 14 unr eas ona bleap pli cat ionof , c lea rlyes tab lis hedFe der al 15 law , a s d ete rmi nedbyth e S upr emeCo urtofth e U nit edOnth e o the r h and , i f C arv aja l had fa irl y p res ent ed 12 his fe der al con sti tut ion al cla im to thest ateco urt s b ut tho se cou rts ha d not adj udi cat ed his co nte nti on on its mer its , w e w oul d r evi ew his ju ris dic tio nal ch all eng e d e nov o. Se e B ell v. Mi lle r, 500 F. 3d 149 , 1 55 (2dCi r. 200 7). Und er tho se cir cum sta nce s, we mig ht agr ee wit h Judg e B und y Smi th tha t N ew Yor k’s ex erc iseofju ris dic tio n w as in vio lat ionofth e C ons tit uti on. Th e N ew Yor k C our t o f Appe als di d n ot cit e 13 Str ass hei m o r a ny ter rit ori al jur isd ict ion al pri nci ple gro und ed in thefe der al Con sti tut ion ; i t w oul d b e i mpr ope r the ref oretoru le tha t t he sta te cou rt “id ent ifi e[d ] t he cor rec t g ove rni ng leg al pri nci plefr om [th e S upr eme ] C our t’s dec isi ons bu t u nre aso nab ly app lie [d] th at pri nci ple .” Wil liams v. Tay lor , 5 29 U.S . 3 62, 41 3 ( 200 0). 37 1 Sta tes .” 2 8 U .S. C. § 2 254 (d) (1) . 12 2 TheSu pre me Cou rt has no t h ad occ asi on to sayho w f ar a 3 sta te maygoinexpan din g i ts cri min al jur isd ict ion . We 4 the ref oreca nno t s ay tha t t he sta te cou rt’ s i nte rpr eta tio n 5 of NewYo rk Cri min al Pro cedureLa w s ect ion20 .20 , h owe ver 6 sur pri sin g, was inco nfl ictwi th “go ver nin g l aw setfo rth ” 7 by theSu pre me Cou rt. W ill iam s v . T ayl or, 52 9 U .S. 36 2, 13 8 405 (2 000 ). 9 CONCLUSION 10 We con clu de tha t C arv aja l f ail ed to pre sen t h is 11 jur isd ict ion al obj ect iontoth e s tat e c our ts in fed era l 12 con sti tut ion al terms andth at he can notes cap e t he 13 con sequen ces ofhi s f ail uretoex hau st tha t c lai m a nd the38 1 res ult ingpr oce dur al def aul t. An y d isa gre eme nt thi s C our t 2 mayha ve wit h t he sta te hig h c our t’s in ter pre tat ionofit s 3 sta te jur isd ict ion al sta tut e d oes no t p rov idegr oun ds for 4 hab eas re lie f. Ac cor din gly , C arv aja l’s ap pli cat ionfo r a 5 wri t o f h abe as cor pus is DI SMI SSE D.