FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JUNE 15, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble Arthur L . Alarc on, United States Circuit Judg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing * by designation. [ P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11074

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 11 -C V -W T M -5 J O H N N Y R A Y O G L E , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s W A R D E N C U R T I S J O H N S O N , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

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

_________________________ ( Ju n e 15, 2007) B efo re P R Y O R , K R A V IT C H an dA L A R C O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * P R Y O R , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

T he m a i n i s s ue i n thi s appe a l i s w he the rapr o s e pe t i t i one rf orthe w r i tof h ab eas co rp u s fai rl y p resen t s h i s cl ai m t o a st at e h ab eas co u rtw h en h e m ak es a bare al l egat i on of i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance of appel l at e c ou nsel i n h i s s t at e habeas pet i t i on and then d es cr i bes i n b ri ef s and t es t i m on y i n l at erproceedi ng s s ever al i nst ance s of a l l eged i neff ec t i ve as si st ance . John ny R ayO gl e f i l ed a t i m el y f

eder al habeas pet i t i on thatal l eged, am on g o ther thi ng s, thathi s app el l at e c ou nsel had been i neff

ec t i ve by fa i l i ng t o p ursue e i gh tspec i fi c argum ent s. T he di stri ctcourt r e vi e w e d O gl e ’ s s t a t e habe a s pr oc e e di ng, c onc l ude d tha tO gl e f a i l e d t o pr e s e nt th es e a ll eg atio n s o f in ef fe ctiv e a ss istan ce in th at p ro ce ed in g , an dd ism isse dO g le’s f e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i on. B e c aus e w e c onc l ude tha tO gl e f a i r l ypr e s e nt e d s e ve n of the s e e i ghta l l e ga t i ons t o the s t a t e habe a s c ourt , w e r e ve r s e a nd r e m a nd. I . B AC KG RO UN D A ft era j ury tri al i n G eorgi a s t at e c ou rt , O gl e, w ho i s i nd i gentand w as re p re se n ted b y ap p o in ted co u n se l, w as co n v icted o f a rm ed ro b b ery. O g le’s appo i nt ed tri al coun se l then fi l ed a m ot i on for anew tri al . B ec ause he w as di ss at i sf i ed w i th h i s tri al coun se l ’ s r epre se nt at i on , O gl e r equest ed and w as grant ed new appo i nt ed coun se l . O gl e’ s new coun se l fi l ed an am ended m ot i on for anew trial an d , w h en th e m o ti o n w as d en ied , rep re se n ted O g le o n ap p ea l. O g le’s c onvi c t i on w a s a f

f i rm e d.3

A f t e re xhaus t i ng hi s opt i ons f ordi r e c tr e vi e w of

hi s c onvi c t i on, O gl e f

i l e d a p ro se p et i t i o n fo r st at e h ab eas co rp u s i n w h i ch h e rai sed n u m ero u s i ssu es, i nc l udi ng f

ourc ount s of

i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

appe l l a t e c ouns e l . T he s e c ond c ountof i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

appe l l a t e c ouns e l r a i s e d i n tha tpe t i t i on c om pl a i ns thathi s c ou nsel w as i neff ec t i ve for “ fa i l ure t o rai se nu m er ou s m er i t ori ou s i ss ues r e q u e s te d b yth e p e titio n e r .” O gl e ’ s pe t i t i on di d note l abor a t e on the s e “ num e r ous m er i t ori ou s i ss ues. ” I n la te rp r o c e e d in g s , O g le e x p la in e dth e le g a l a n df a c tu a l b a s is f

o rh is a l l e ga t i on tha thi s appe l l a t e c ouns e l ha d f a i l e d t o r a i s e “ num e r ous m e r i t or i ous i ss ues. ” A tthe evi dent i ary heari ng hel d b y the st at e habeas court , O gl e quest i on ed h is p o s tc o n v ic tio n a tto rn e yab o u t h e rf a ilu r e to r a is e s e v e r a l is s u e s . O g le s p e c if ic a llyq u e s tio n e d h is p o s tc o n v ic tio n c o u n s e l ab o u t h e rf a ilu r e to in v e s tig a te the ba s i s f

orthe a dm i s s i on of

the of f e ns e w e apon i nt o e vi de nc e , r a i s e a n i s s ue about th e p r o s e c u tin g a tto rn e y ’s f a ilu r e to d is c lo s e ap le aa g r e e m e n t w ith ac o d e f e n d a n t, r a i s e the i s s ue tha tne i the rO gl e norhi s c ouns e l w e r e pr e s e nta ta rr a i gnm e nt , a r gue tha tthe pr os e c ut orvi ol a t e d O gl e ’ s r i ghtnott o t e s t i f ya ga i ns thi m s e l f

, a nd a r gue th atth e p ro secu t o r su b o rn ed p erj u ry. O gl e a l s o t e s t i f

i e d be f or e the s t a t e habe a s c ourt . O gl e e xpl a i ne d tha the s e nt a pro se m em orandu m of l aw t o h i s app el l at e c ou nsel advi si ng her t o rai se se vera l4

is s u e s in am o tio n f

o ran e w tr ia l b u t s h e r e f u s e d . O g le te s tif

ie dth a t h e a tte m p te d to fi l e the m em orandu m i n the tri al courthi m se l f butthe tri al courtre fuse d t o con si der the pro se s ub m i ss i on . O gl e a l l eged thathe w as prej ud i ce d b y hi s c ou nsel ’ s f ai l ure t o rai se the i ss ues i n h i s pro se m em orandu m . O gl e’ s m em orandu m w as ent er ed i nt o e vi de nc e a tthe he a r i ng. In the pro se m em orandu m re fe re nced i n h i s t es t i m on y, O gl e r equest ed that h i s co u n sel arg u e th e fo l l o w i n g “ m eri t o ri o u s” i ssu es: th e p ro secu t o r d i dn o td i scl o se the pl e aa gr e e m e ntw i th O gl e ’ s c ode f e nda nta nd s uborne d pe r j ury ; ne i the rhe nor h is c o u n s e l w e r e p r e s e n t a t th e a rr a ig n m e n t; th e s e ar c h w a rr a n t w a s o b ta in e dw ith f a ls e te s tim o n y ; a n d th e o f f e n s e w e ap o n w a s in a d m is s ib le e v id e n c e . O g le re fe re nced thi s m em orandu m and h i s app el l at e c ou nsel ’ s f ai l ure t o rai se these i ss ues th r o u g h o u t th e e v id e n tia ryh e a r in g b e f o r e th e s ta te h ab e a s c o u rt. I n ap o s t- h e a r in g b r ie f

, w h ic h th e s ta te h ab e a s c o u rt r e q u e s te d , O g le a g a in e x p la in e d th e b a s is f

o rh is in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e c la im a g a in s t h is ap p e lla te c o u n s e l. O gl e a r gue d tha the r e que s t e d tha thi s appe l l a t e c ouns e l r a i s e num e r ous “m e r ito r io u s ” is s u e s , w h ic h h e a tte m p te dto p r e s e rv e in h is p r o s e m e m o r a n d u m . O gl e then enu m er at ed three i ss ues outof the m any i n h i s pro se m em orandu m that h is c o u n s e l d idn o t r a is e . O g le a r g u e dth a t h is c o u n s e l w a s in a d e q u a te w h e n s h e d id n o t r a is e a n a r g u m e n t r e g a r d in g th e f a ilu r e o f th e p r o s e c u to rto “r e v e a l th e d e a l,”5

w h en sh e fai l ed t o i n v est i g at e an dch al l en g e th e ev i d en t i ary b asi s fo r th e o ffen se w eapo n, and w hen she di d n otar gu e thata new tri al w as w arrant ed because nei ther O gl e nor hi s tri al coun se l w er e pre se ntatthe arra i gn m ent . F i nal l y, O gl e r ei t er at ed th ath i s ap p el l at e co u n sel fai l ed t o ad d ress th e i ssu es rai sed i n h i s p ro se m e m o r a n d u m an d h e rf a ilu r e w a s th e b a s is o f

h is in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

ap p e lla te c o u n s e l c la im . T h e s ta te h ab e a s c o u rt f o u n dth a t O g le ’s ap p e lla te c o u n s e l r e a s o n ab ly bel i eved thatshe had no basi s t o al l ege thatthe prosecut or fa i l ed t o d i sc l ose apl ea b a r g a in w ith O g le ’s c o d e f e n d a n t, “ a s s e rttha tthe s t a t e i m pe rm i s s i bl y[ c om m e nt e d] o n [ O g le ’s ] r ig h t to r e m a in s ile n t,” o ra lle g e th a t th e p r o s e c u to rh a dim p r o p e r ly in je c te d h is p e r s o n a l o p in io n in to c lo s in g a r g u m e n t. T he st at e habeas courtre j ec t ed O g le ’s a r g u m e n t th a t h is c o u n s e l e rr e dw h e n s h e f a ile dto r a is e th e is s u e s in h is m e m or a ndum . T he s t a t e habe a s c ourtc onc l ude d tha tO gl e ’ s c ouns e l di d notha ve a n o b lig a tio n to r a is e e v e ryis s u e r e q u e s te db yO g le a n ds h e h a dm a d e as tr a te g ic de c i s i on t o r a i s e the i s s ue s s he thoughtha d the s tr onge s tc ha nc e of pr e va i l i ng. T he G e or gi aS upr e m e C ourtde ni e d O gl e ’ s t i m e l yappl i c a t i on f orac e rt i f

i c a t e of p r o b ab le c au s e to ap p e a l. O gl e f i l e d ape t i t i on f

orhabe a s c orpus i n f

e de r a l di s tr i c tc ourti n w hi c h he r a is e d e ig h t c la im s r e la te d to th e in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

h is ap p e lla te c o u n s e l.6

O g l e assert ed th ath i s ap p el l at e co u n sel h ad b een i n effecti v e fo r h er fai l u re t o rai se the f ol l ow i ng i s s ue s i n he rm ot i on f orane w tr i a l oron appe a l : ( 1) the pr os e c ut or i m pr ope r l yc om m e nt e d on O gl e ’ s r e f us a l t o m a ke apos t - a rr e s ts t a t e m e nt ; ( 2) the st at e and O gl e’ s tri al coun se l fa i l ed t o i nform the j ury of pl eaagre em ent s betw ee n the st at e and w i tness es , i ncl ud i ng O gl e’ s c od ef endant ; (3) the prosecut or subo rned pe r j uryw he n he f

a i l e d t o c orr e c tthe s t a t e m e ntof O gl e ’ s c ode f

e nda nttha the di d not ha ve a n a gr e e m e ntw i th the s t a t e a nd r e pe a t e d tha ts t a t e m e nti n hi s c l os i ng a r gum e nt ; ( 4) ne i the rO gl e norhi s c ouns e l w e r e pr e s e nta tthe a rr a i gnm e nt ; ( 5) the p r o s e c u to rim p r o p e r lys ta te d h is o p in io n a s to O g le ’s tru th f u ln e s s ; ( 6 ) th e G e o r g ia B ur e au of

I nve s t i ga t i on a ge ntus e d f a l s e t e s t i m onyt o obt a i n as e a r c h w a rr a nt ; ( 7) th e tri al co u rtsh o u l d h av e al l o w ed O g l e t o p resen tan dp reserv e i ssu es i n a p ro se b r ie f d u r in g tr ia l; a n d ( 8 ) th e o f f e n s e w e ap o n s h o u ldh a v e b e e n e x c lu d e da t tr ia l. A ft erre vi ew i ng the tri al and st at e habeas corpus re cords, the di stri ctcourt d e te rm in e d th a t O g le f

a ile d to e x h au s t th e s e e ig h t is s u e s to th e s ta te c o u rts . B e c aus e G e or gi al a w w oul d ba rO gl e f r om a s s e rt i ng the s e a r gum e nt s i n as e c ond s ta te p o s tc o n v ic tio n p r o c e e d in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n c lu d e dth a t O g le p r o c e d u r a lly defaul t ed these ar gu m ent s. T he di stri ctcourtaddres se d the other argum ent s r ai se d i n O gl e ’ s f

e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i on a nd c onc l ude d tha tthe yw e r e m e r i t l e s s . T he di s tr i c tc ourtthe n di s m i s s e d O gl e ’ s pe t i t i on. W e gr a nt e d ac e rt i f i c a t e of7

appeal abi l i ty on the fol l ow i ng i ss ue: W hether the di stri ctcourterre d i n fi nd i ng that O g le p r o c e d u r a llyd e f

au lte d h is e ig h t c la im s o f in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

ap p e lla te co u n sel b y fai l i n g t o rai se th em i n h i s st at e h ab eas p ro ceed i n g s. I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW

“ W h eth er [O g l e] i s p ro ced u ral l y b arred fro m rai si n g p art i cu l ar cl ai m s i s a m i xe d que s t i on of

l a w a nd f

a c ttha tw e r e vi e w de novo. ” B a i l e yv. N a gl e , 172 F . 3d 1 2 9 9 , 1 3 0 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . P r o c e d u r a l d e f au lt c a n a r is e “if

th e p e titio n e rs im p ly n e v e rr a is e d ac la im in s ta te c o u rt, a n dit is o b v io u s th a t th e u n e x h au s te dc la im w ou l d n ow be procedural l y barre d d ue t o a st at e- l aw procedural defaul t . ” I d. at 1303. I I I . DI S CUS S I ON O u rd is c u s s io n is d iv id e d in tw o p a rts . F ir s t, w e a d d r e s s th e m a in q u e s tio n in thi s appe a l : w he the rO gl e e xhaus t e d hi s s t a t e r e m e di e s a s t o hi s e i ghtc l a i m s of in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. S e c o n d , w e a d d r e s s w h e th e ra n yc la im th a t O g le f a i l e d t o e xhaus ti s pr oc e dur a l l yde f aul t e d be c aus e i tc a nnotbe e xhaus t e d i n a s u c c e s s iv e h ab e a s p e titio n in G e o r g ias ta te c o u rt. A . Og le E

x h a u s te d Se v e n o f His E ig h t C la im s o

f I n e ffe c tiv e A s s is ta n c e o

f C o u n s e l. T he habeas st atut e r equi re s app l i cant s t o exhaustal l avai l abl e s t at e l aw r e m e di e s be f

or e f i l i ng af e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i on. 28 U . S . C . § 2254( b) ( 1) ( A ) . “ [ T ] he8

f e d e r a l c la im m u s t b e f

a ir lyp r e s e n te dto th e s ta te c o u rts ” s o th a t “th e s ta te c o u rts ha ve ha d the f

i r s topportuni tyt o he a rthe c l a i m s oughtt o be vi ndi c a t e d i n the f e de r a l habe a s pr oc e e di ng. ” P i c a r d v. C onnor, 404 U . S . 270, 275- 76, 92 S . C t . 509, 5 1 2 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . I t is n o t e n o u g h th a t O g le , in h is s ta te h ab e a s p e titio n , a tta c k e dh is po st conv i ct i on coun se l as i nadequ at e f or her f ai l ure t o rai se “ m er i t ori ou s i ss ues. ”

“ [A ] habeas pet i t i on erm ayno tpres enti nst ance s of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l i n hi s f e de r a l pe t i t i on tha tthe s t a t e c ourtha s note va l ua t e d pr e vi ous l y . ” F ootm a n v. S i ngl e t a ry , 978 F . 2d 1207, 1211 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . T o ha ve e xhaus t e d the s e e i ght c l a i m s , O gl e ha d t o pr e s e ntthe e i ghti ns t a nc e s of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e tha the now as se rt s i n h i s f

eder al pet i t i on “ such thata r ea sonabl e r ea der w ou l d u nd er st and each c la im ’s p a rtic u la rle g a l b a s is a n d s p e c if ic f a c tu a l f o u n d a tio n .” M c N a irv . C a m p b e ll, 41 6 F . 3d 12 91 , 13 02 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). T he s t a t e habe a s c ourte xpl i c i t l yr e j e c t e d thr e e of

O gl e ’ s a r gum e nt s , a nd W ar den Joh nson confes se s thatthese cl ai m s w er e e xh aust ed. T he st at e habeas c ourtc onc l ude d tha tO gl e ’ s appe l l a t e c ouns e l w a s pe rm i tt e d nott o a r gue tha tthe prosec ut or fa i l ed t o d i sc l ose apl eaagre em entw i th O gl e’ s c od ef endant(I ss ue 2), “to a s s e rt th a t th e s ta te im p e rm is s ib ly[ c o m m e n te d ] o n [ O g le ’s ] r ig h t to r e m a in s ile n t” ( I s s u e 1 ) , o rto a lle g e th a t th e p r o s e c u to rh a dim p r o p e r lyin je c te dh is p e r s o n a l o p in io n in to c lo s in g a r g u m e n t ( I s s u e 5 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e dw h e n it9

de t e rm i ne d tha tthe s e a r gum e nt s w e r e pr oc e dur a l l yde f aul t e d. W a r d e n J o h n s o n a r g u e s th a t O g le f a ile dto e x h au s t a n yis s u e th a t th e s ta te habeas courtdi d n otaddres s i n i t s order , bu tw e di sa gree . A habeas pet i t i on er e x h au s ts a v a ilab le s ta te r e m e d ie s w h e n h e f a ir lyp r e s e n ts h is c la im f o ras ta te r e m e dye ve n i f

the s t a t e ne ve ra c t s on hi s c l a i m . S e e B r e a z e a l e v. B r a dl e y , 582 F . 2d 5, 6 ( 5th C i r . 1978) ( “ [ A ] f e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i one rw i l l be e xc us e d f r om the e x h au s tio n r e q u ir e m e n t if th e s ta te u n r e a s o n ab lyd e la y s a c tin g o n h is e f f o rts to i nv ok e s t at e r em edi es . ”) . “ Iti s t oo ob vi ou s t o m er i text ended d i sc ussi on that w hether the exhaust i on re qu i re m entof 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(b) has been sat i sf i ed cann otturn u po n w hether ast at e . . . courtchoo se s t o i gn ore i n i t s opi ni on a f eder al c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s qua r e l yr a i s e d . . . i n the s t a t e c ourt . ” S m i th v. D i gm on, 434 U . S . 3 3 2 , 3 3 3 , 9 8 S . C t . 5 9 7 , 5 9 9 (1 9 7 8 ). T h e w ri tt en o rd er o f th e st at e co u rti s a s t a rt i ng, nota n e ndi ng, poi ntf oroura na l y s i s of

e xhaus t i on. S e e , e . g. , F ootm a n, 97 8 F . 2d at12 12 (“ [T ] he m agi stra t e j ud ge shou l d n othave rel i ed up on the st at e tri al c o u rt’s o r d e rto d e te rm in e w h ic h a lle g a tio n s F o o tm a n p r e s e n te din h is s ta te p o s tc o n v ic tio n m o tio n .” ) . T h e o p in io n o f th e s ta te h ab e a s c o u rt e s tab lis h e s th a t O g le e x h au s te d th e is s u e s a d d r e s s e d in th a t o p in io n , b u t w e c a n n o t c o n c lu d e , b a s e do n ly on the si l ence of thatop i ni on abou tother i ss ues, thatO gl e pre se nt ed no other arg u m en t s.10

O gl e pe r s ua s i ve l ya r gue s tha the f a i r l ypr e s e nt e d s e ve r a l c l a i m s of i ne f f e c t i ve as si st ance of coun se l throu gh hi s di re ctt es t i m on y, the exam i nat i on of hi s post -tri al a tto rn e y , th e e n tryo f

h is p r o s e m e m o r a n d u m in to e v id e n c e , a n dth e f ilin g o f ap o s thear i ng bri ef

. In F ranci s v. S praggi ns, w e hel d thata G eorgi a pet i t i on erexhaust ed hi s c l a i m i n the s t a t e habe a s c ourtw he n he m a de age ne r a l a l l e ga t i on of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e i n hi s s t a t e habe a s pe t i t i on a nd c a l l e d s pe c i f i c i ns t a nc e s of

i ne f f e c t i ve assi st an ce t o th e att en t i o n o f th e co u rtd u ri n g th e p ro ceed i n g s: T hi s i s nott o saythata genera l al l egat i on of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance or a s pe c i f i c a l l e ga t i on of

i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e w hol l yunr e l a t e d t o the grou nd on w hi ch the cl ai m ul t i m at el y depends w i l l i m m un i ze a pe t i t i one rf

r om af i ndi ng of pr oc e dur a l de f

aul t . B utw he r e the pet i t i on erca l l s the st at e c ou rt ’ s a tt ent i on t o i neff ec t i ve as si st ance p r o b le m s a n d th e c o u rt e x a m in e s th e c ru c ia l a s p e c t o f c o u n s e l's r e pr e s e nt a t i on, a s i n thi s c a s e , the pe t i t i one rm a yr e l i t i ga t e the c o n s titu tio n a l c la im in f e d e r a l c o u rt. 72 0 F . 2d 11 90 , 11 93 (11th C i r. 19 83 ). O u rr e v ie w o f

th e r e c o r d o f

O g le ’s s ta te h ab e a s p r o c e e d in g r e v e a ls th a t, in addi t i on t o the three i ss ues upo n w hi ch the st at e habeas courtexpl i ci t l y pas se d j udgm e nt , O gl e pr e s e nt e d a nothe rf ourof the e i ghta l l e ga t i ons of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s is ta n c e th a t h e d e s c r ib e d in h is f e d e r a l h ab e a s p e titio n . I n h is te s tim o n y , O g le com pl ai ned thathi s post conv i ct i on coun se l had b ee n i neff ec t i ve w hen she re fuse d to ra ise th e iss u es in h is m em o ra n d u m , w h ich h e o ff er ed in to ev id en ce . O g le’s m em orandu m advi se d h i s a tt orney t o argue thatthe prosecut or subo rned perj ury11

( I s s ue 3) , ne i the rhe norhi s c ouns e l w e r e pr e s e nta tthe a rr a i gnm e nt( I s s ue 4) , the s e a r c h w a rr a ntw a s obt a i ne d w i th f a l s e t e s t i m ony( I s s ue 6) , a nd the of f e ns e w e apon w as i nadm i ss i bl e ( Is sue 8). W hen con strued l i bera l l y, se e T annenb aum v. U ni t ed S t at es , 14 8 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 63 (11th C i r. 19 98 ), O gl e’ s post -heari ng bri ef re i t er at ed tha thi s c ouns e l s houl d ha ve c ha l l e nge d the of f e ns e w e apon a s i na dm i s s i bl e ( I s s ue 8) a n d th e ab s e n c e o f

O g le a t h is a rr a ig n m e n t ( I s s u e 4 ) . O g le a ls o q u e s tio n e dh is appel l at e c ou nsel ext ensi vel y on h erre fusa l t o rai se these i ss ues. T he di stri ctcourt e rr e d w he n i tde t e rm i ne d tha tthe s e a r gum e nt s w e r e pr oc e dur a l l yde f aul t e d. O g le f a ile d to e x h au s t as in g le a lle g a tio n o f in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

ap p e lla te coun se l . T he re cord do es no tes t abl i sh thatO gl e argued t o the st at e habeas court thatthe tri al courterre d b y notal l ow i ng O gl e t o fi l e hi s pro se m em orandu m or that hi s c ou nsel w as i neff

ec t i ve w hen she di d n otappeal thi s dec i si on (I ss ue 7). A toral a r g u m e n t in th is ap p e a l, O g le ’s ap p o in te dc o u n s e l a d m itte dth a t O g le w a iv e dth is i ss ue, and w e app re ci at e hercand or. B . T h e Se v e n th I

s s u e o f I n e ffe c tiv e A s s is ta n c e o

f C o u n s e l I

s P r o c e du r a lly D ef au l ted . W h e n af e d e r a l h ab e a s p e titio n r a is e s ac la im th a t h a s n o t b e e n e x h au s te d in s t a t e pr oc e e di ngs , the di s tr i c tc ourtor di na r i l ym us te i the rdi s m i s s the pe t i t i on, “le a v in g th e p r is o n e rw ith th e c h o ic e o f r e tu rn in g to s ta te c o u rt to e x h au s t h is cl ai m s or of a m endi ng or re subm i tt i ng the habeas pet i t i on t o p re se nton l y e xh aust ed12

c l a i m s t o the di s tr i c tc ourt , ” K e l l e yv. S e c ’ yf orD e pt . of

C orr . , 377 F . 3d 1317, 1351 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) , o rg r a n t as ta ya n dab e y a n c e to a l l ow the pe t i t i one rt o e xhaus tthe une xhaus t e d c l a i m , s e e R hi ne s v. W e be r , 544 U . S . 269, 277- 79, 125 S . C t . 1528, 1535- 36 ( 2005) . “ [ W ] he n i ti s obvi ous tha tthe un exhaust ed cl ai m s w ou l d b e procedural l y barre d i n st at e c ou rtdu e t o a st at e- l aw pr oc e dur a l de f

aul t , [ the di s tr i c tc ourt ] c a n f or e go the ne e dl e s s ‘ j udi c i a l pi ng- pong’ and j usttre attho se cl ai m s now barr ed by st at e l aw as no basi s f or fe dera l habeas r e l i e f . ” K e l l e y , 377 F . 3d a t1351 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . T he une xhaus t e d c l a i m s s houl d be tr e a t e d a s i f pr oc e dur a l l yde f

aul t e d. S e e B a i l e y , 172 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 2 . A p e titio n is “d u e to b e d e n ie dw ith p r e ju d ic e [ if

] th e r e a r e n o s ta te r e m e d ie s le f

t to e x h au s t a n d a ll o f

th e c la im s a r e e ith e rm e r itle s s o rp r o c e d u r a lly defaul t ed. ” C ham bers v. T ho m pson , 15 0 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 26 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). S e c t i on 9- 14- 51 of

the G e or gi aC ode f

orbi ds s uc c e s s i ve s t a t e habe a s pe t i t i ons e x c e p t to r a is e is s u e s th a t c o u ldn o t h a v e b e e n r a is e din th e f ir s t h ab e a s p e titio n . T hi s rul e “ bars the defendantfr om ra i si ng i n a se cond , or succ es si ve, col l at er al att ac k p roce edi ng an error thathe shou l d h ave pres ent ed i n h i s f i rs t , or earl i er , col l at er al att ac k p roce edi ng . ” P re snel l v. K em p, 83 5 F . 2d 15 67 , 15 73 (11th C i r. 19 88 ). “ T he G eorgi a s t atut e . . . can and shou l d b e e nforced i n federa l habeas p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s tc l a i ms n e v e rp r e s e n t e di n s t a t e c o u rt , u n l e s s th e r e i s s o me13

i ndi c a t i on tha tas t a t e c ourtj udge w oul d f i nd the c l a i m s i n que s t i on ‘ c oul d not re as on abl y have been ra i se d i n the ori gi nal or am ended [st at e] pet i t i on . ’ ” C h a m b e r s , 1 5 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 7 ( q u o tin g G a . C o d e A n n . § 9 - 1 4 - 5 1 ) . O g le ’s u n e x h au s te d c la im f o rin e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e ( I s s u e 7 ) c le a r lyc o u ld no tbe ra i se d i n a succ es si ve st at e habeas pet i t i on and i s proce du ra l l y def aul t ed u n d e rGe o r g i al aw. If

th e d istrict co u rt o n re m an dag ain co n clu d es th at O g le’s p e titio n d o e s n o t r a is e a n ym e r ito r io u s c la im s , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s h o u ldn o t, a s it d id b e f o r e , d is m is s th e p e titio n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt s h o u ldd e n yth e p e titio n w ith p r e ju d ic e . S e e C h a m b e r s , 1 5 0 F .3 da t 1 3 2 6 . I V . CONCL US I ON B e c aus e O gl e e xhaus t e d i n hi s s t a t e pos t c onvi c t i on pr oc e e di ng s e ve n of the ei gh tal l egat i on s of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l thathe no w ra i se s i n h i s f eder al h ab eas p et i t i o n , th e d i sm i ssal o f O g l e’ s h ab eas p et i t i o n i s R EVER SED a nd R EM A N D ED .