T he H o no rable K arl S. Fo res t er, Senior U ni t ed Stat es D i st ri ct J ud ge f o r t he E ast ern D i st ri ct of K ent ucky, s i t t i ng * b y de si gnat i o n. 1

NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 06a0755n.06 Filed: Oc tober 12, 2006 No. 05-4432 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

JAME S HO WARD Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla

nt,

V.

J EFF REY WOL FE, WARDEN, Respondent-Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN D I STRI CT OF

O H IO

Before: GIBBONS and McK EA GU E , Circuit Judges; F OREST ER, Senior District Judge. * F OREST ER, Senior Dis tr ict Judge. Petitioner-Appellant James Howar d appea ls the district court’s dismissal of his pe tition for writ of habea s corpus pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 2254 challeng ing his c hild endang erme nt conviction. For the re asons set for

th below, we AF F IRM the judg ment of the dis tr ic t c ourt

. I. F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND Howar d was convicted of child endang erme nt in the B utler County , Ohio, Court of Common Pleas on J anuar

y 31, 2002. The conviction arose from events which alleg edly occur red on April 4,2

20 00 , w he n a

min or vic timsto pp e d b re a thi ng , w e nt l imp , a nd wa s tak e n to the ho sp ita l. At the tim e of the inc ide nt, on ly

Ho wa rd , th e vic tim , a

nd a no the r c hil d w e re pr e se nt at t he home . T he vic tim appar ently

suffe red injuries that the prosec ution arg ued we re c onsistent with shaken baby sy ndrome. I n his defense at trial, Howa rd ar g ued that he ne ver c ommitt ed the a lleg ed conduc t, and he pr esente d

e xpe rt te sti mony

tha t th e vic tim ’s inj ur ie s r e su lte d f ro m bi rt h tr a uma . A jur

y fo un d H ow a rd

g uil ty of the c hild endang erme nt char g es, and he was subseque ntl y s en t en ce d to a term of se ven y ear s imprisonment, followed by a mandatory

term of f ive y ear s in post-relea se control. Howar d, wi t h the assistance of counse l, appea led his conviction to the Ohio Court of Ap pe a ls, a lle g ing the tr ia l c ourt c omm itt e d the fo llo wi ng e rr or s: (1 ) the e xclu sion of ce rt a in statements as “i n ad m i s s i b l e hea rsay ”; and ( 2) the re fusal to dismiss t he sec ond count of the indictment [ child endang erme nt] based on insuff iciency of the e vidence . On April 18, 2003, the Oh io C ourt

of Ap pe a ls ove rr

ule d the a ssi g nme nts of e rr or a nd a ff ir me d the tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt. Howar d appea led the Ohio Court of Ap p ea l s ’ d ec ision to t he Ohio Supreme Court. On J uly 16, 2003, th e O h io Su

p r e me Co u rt d e n ie d H o w a r d le a v e to a p p e a l a n d d is mi s s e d th e a p p e a l “ as not involving any

substantial constituti onal question.” Then, on J uly

21, 2003, Howar d filed a pro se a pp lic a tio n to re op e n h is a pp e a l pu rs ua nt t o Ohio R. App. P. 26(B) in the Ohio Court of Appeals. I n this application, Howard alleg ed that he w as de nie d e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of a pp e llate c ouns e l. Ho wa

rd a rgue d th a t hi s a

pp e llate c ouns e l f

a ile d to

asser t as additional assig nments of er ror that he was de nied ef

fec tive assistance of couns el at trial and that his conviction wa s ag ainst the “we ight of the evidenc e.” T he Ohio Court of Appe als denied Howar d’s application for re opening on September 17, 2003. This decision was not appea led t o the Oh io S up re me Court

.3

There afte r, Howa

rd filed a petition f or writ of habea s corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

on November 17, 2004. I n support of his petition, Howard a rg ues: (1) he is actually

innocent; (2) he wa s d e nie d e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l on

dir e c t a pp e a l; a nd (3 ) t he tr ia l c ourt

vio la te d h is rig ht to a jury

trial in determining his se n t en ce . S p ec i fica lly , Howar d relies on thre e piec es of evidenc e that he argues prove his actua l innocenc e: (1) a new study published in the B ritish Medical J ournal on Mar ch 27, 2004 which he claims “ca lls into question the medica l basis for finding shaken baby sy ndrome” ; and (2) reports from two medical doctors w ho revie wed the r ecor d and opine that it is l ikely that the victim’s brain inj ury occur red during the birth proce ss and was not the r esult of

a ny c hil d a b u s e o r d a m a g e i n f

l i c t e d b y H o w a r d

. I n r e s p o n s e , W a r d e n W o l f e f i l e d a m o t i o n to dis mis s, a rguin g that H owa rd ha s w a ive d th e se g ro un ds fo r r e lie f b e c a us e he fa ile d to pr e se nt h is

a c tua l in no c e nc e a nd

se nte nc ingc la ims to a

ny state c ourt a nd be c a

us e he fa ile d to a

pp e a l th e Oh io Court of App eals’ decision dec lining to re open his applica tion alleg ing ine ffe ctive assistanc e of

a pp e llate c ouns e l c la im t o th e Oh io S up re me Court

. Th is m a tte r w a s r e fe rr e d to a ma g ist rate jud g e fo r a re po rt a nd re c omm e nd a tio n p ur su a nt t o Rul e 72 (b ) o f t

he F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure . Af te r re vie w of the re c or d a nd the a rgume nts of the pa rties, the mag istrate judg e re com m en d ed that the motion to dis miss be gr anted a nd the petition be dismiss ed with pre judice on the g rounds that Howa rd wa ived his claims for r elief. Co n d u c ti n g it s own d

e n o vo revie w of the pr ocedur al history and leg al ana ly sis, the district court adopted the r eport and rec ommendation and dis missed with prejudice the petit ion for writ of habea s corpus. This timely

appea l followed.4

II. STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW I n a hab e a s p ro c e e din g , th is c ourt re vie ws de novo the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s le g a l c on c lus ion s, including its ultimate dec ision to gra nt or deny the writ, while re viewing for c lear err or its fac tual finding s. Burton v. Renic o , 3 91 F .3 d 7 64 , 7 70 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) ; Sawyer v. Ho f b auer , 299 F.3d 605,608 (6 t h C i r. 2002). W hether a petitioner ha s satisfied the exhaustion of state re medies require ment of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b ) i s a question of lawthat this court should review de novo. Satterlee v . W

olfenbarger , 453 F.3d 362, 365 ( 6th Cir. 2006). III . AN AL YSI S A w ri t of ha

be a s c or pu s may no t be g ra

nte d u nle ss t he pe tit ion e r h a s e xha

us te d a ll ava ila

ble state cour t remedie s. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). This exhaustion r equire ment is satisfied only if the pe tit ion e r’ s c la im i s “ fa ir ly pr e se nte d” to t

he state c ourt s bef

or e se e kin g re lie f i n th e fe de ra l c ourt s. Ba ldw in v . R e ese , 5 41 U. S. 2 7, 29 (2 00 4) ; W h i t i n g v . B ur t , 3 9 5 F.3d 602, 612 ( 6th Cir. 2005). A

c on sti tut ion a l c la im f

or re lie f m us t be pr e se nte d to the state ’s hig he st c ourt in or de r to s a tis fy

the fa ir prese ntation require ment. O’Sullivan v. Boe rcke l , 526 U. S. 838 , 8 48 (1 99 9) ; Ha fle yv . S owd e rs , 902 F.2d 480, 483 ( 6th Cir. 1990). I n o th e r w o r d s , a

p e ti ti o n e r

ma y n o t u s e f

e d e r a l h a b e a s r e v ie w to a s s e rt a f e d era l

c on sti tut ion a l r ig ht t

ha t he fa ile d to fu lly pr e se nt to the state c ourt s be c a us e of a pr oc e dura l de fa

ult

. W ainwright v. Syk es , 433 U. S. 72, 86 -8 7 (19 77 ). I f a pe tit ion e r ca n no long e r p re se nt h is c la ims to a state c ourt due to a pr ocedur al def ault, then he ha s wa i v ed t hose cla ims for purposes of fede ral habea s corpus re view unless he c an demonstrate ca use for the proc edura l defa

ult a n d actua l prejudice resulting from the a lleg ed constitutional err or, or that failure to consider the claims will result in a5

“funda mental miscarr iag e of justice.” Coleman v. Thompson , 501 U. S. 722 , 750 (1 99 1) ; Murray v. Carrier , 4 77 U. S. 4 78 , 4 85 (1 98 6) ; W ainwright , 433 U.S. at 87. A. HOW AR

D’ S P RO CE DU RA L D EF AU LTS IN THE O HIO CO UR TS RESULT ED IN WAIVER OF THOS E CLAIMS 1. AC TU AL IN NO CE NC E I n his petition for fede ral ha bea s relief

, Howar d asser

ts that he is actually

innocent of the child endangerment charg e. Howe ver, H owar d’s claim of a ctual innoce nce ba sed on the “ new evidenc e” outlined in his petition has never been prese nted to the Ohio courts. Clearly , as the district

c ou rt f o u n d , H o w a r d h a s p r o c e d u r a l l y d e f a u l t e d o n t h i s c l a i m . M o r e o v e r , H o w a r d h a s f a i l e d to prese nt any

justification for this proce dural defa ult. As a result, the district c ourt proper ly found that the proc edura lly

defa ulted claim of a ctual innoce nce is not subject to re view under the “c ause” and “pre judice” sta

ndard. 2. IN EF F EC TIV E A SSIST AN CE OF AP P ELLA TE C OU NSE L Ho wa rd fi rs t pr e se nte d his ine ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l c la im t o th e Oh io c ourt s o n July 21 , 2 00 3 w he n h e fi le d h is pro se application for reope ning of

hi s ap p ea l with the Ohio Court of Appea ls. On September 17, 2003, the Ohio Court of Appea ls denied Howa

rd’s a pplication to reope n fo r f a ilure to p re se nt a

g e nu ine iss ue . H ow a rd

fa iled to app eal thi s d e c isi on to t he Oh io S up re me Court

. Ne ve rt

he le ss, Ho wa

rd no w s e e ks habeas revi ew o f hi s i neff ect iv e ass is tan ce of

cou ns el c laim. Ho wa rd ’s fa ilure to a

pp e a l th e Oh io C ourt

of Ap pe a ls’ de c isi on

to d e ny his a

pp lic a tio n to re op e n is a proc edura l defa

ult resulting in wa iver of this cla im. As the district court found, Howar d has not provided a

ny justification as “c ause” for this proce dural de fault; there fore his defaulted c laim of ineffe ctive assist ance of counsel is not subject t o revie w under the “cause” and “pr ejudice” standard.6 3 . VI OL A TI ON OF HI S RI G HT TO A J U R Y TR I A L W I TH R EG ARD TO HI S SEN TEN CE I n his f inal claim for habea s relief , Howar d argues that the sente ncing court violated his rig ht to have a ll elements of his offe nse dete rmined by a jury using the bey ond a re asonable doubt standard. Spec ifically , Howar d contends that he wa s sentence d to seven y ear s of incar cer ation based on the sentenc ing c ourt’s dete rmination that a shorter term would deme an the s er iousness of the

c ri me - a fi nd ingthat he c la ims wa s n ot su pp or te d by the jur

y ve rd ic t in thi s c a se . Ho wa rd a dmi ts that this claim has never been pr esente d to any

Ohio state cour

t, but arg u es t h at t h e claim was “unava ilable to this point .” Howar d does not explain why this claim was not prese nted before. Without any justification for the “ cause ” of this proc edura l defa ult, the district court proper ly denied How ard’ s claim for r elief. B. THE E VIDENCE IN SUP P ORT OF HOWARD’ S ACTUAL INNOCENCE CL AI M DO ES N OT J UST IF Y H AB EA S RE LIEF De sp ite his pr oc e dura l de fa ult on his a c tua l in no c e nc e c la im a nd his fa ilure to e sta

bli sh “ca use” f or the proc edura l defa

ult, Howard a

rg ues that he r emains entitled to fede ral ha beas r elief be c a us e the ov e rw he lmi ng e vid e nc e su pp or ts h is c la im. Th e Un ite d Sta te s Su pr e me Court

ha s h e ld that if a ha

beas pe titioner “pre sents evid ence of innoce nce so strongthat a cour t cannot have confide nce in the outc ome of the tria l unless the court is also satisfie d t h at t h e t rial wa s fre e of nonharmless c onstitut ional err or, the petitioner should be allowed to pa ss throug h the g atewa y and argue the merits of his underly ing c laims.” Sc hlu p v . D e lo , 513 U. S. 298 , 316 (1 99 5) . The thr e sh old inquiry is whether “ new f

acts ra ise [ ] s u fficient doubt about [ the petitioner’s] g uilt to undermine confide nce in the r esult of trial.” Id

. at 317. I n order to e stablish a ctual innocence, t h e p et i t i oner

“ mus t sh owtha

t it is m or e lik e ly

tha n not that no re a so na

ble jur or wo uld have fo un d p e tit ion e r guil ty7

bey ond a re asonable doubt.” Id . at 327. I mportantly , “‘a ctual innocenc e’ means fa ctual innoce nce, not mere le g al insufficie ncy .” Bousley v. United States , 5 23 U. S. 6 14 , 6 23 (1 99 8) . T he Sup re me Court has ca

utioned that the actua l innoc ence exception should “re main rar e” and “only be applied in the ‘extraordinar

y case .’” Schlup , 513 U.S. at 321. The e vidence relied upon by Howar d in support of his actual innoce nce c laim simply does

no t r ise to t

his e xtra or din a ry

sta nd a rd . T he dis tr ic t c ourt fo un d that the 20 04 a rt ic le fr om a B ri tis h medical journa l, although obviously unavailable at the time of trial, was only

“mar g inally

rele vant as it did not address the pa rticular f acts posed by

the ca se-at -h an d

. ” As a result, the district cour t deter mined that i t wa s “hig hly doubtful that the article would have ha d any impact on the jury ’s verdic t in this case .” Wit h respe ct to the new e x pert opinions, the district court found that Howar d failed to a rg ue

or e sta bli shthat th e se e xpe rt s we re un a va ila ble to him a t the tim e of tr ia l. I n f a c t, t he re c or d r e fl e c ts that de fe nse co un se l r e lie d o n e xpe rt wi tne ss t e sti mony

a t tr ia l w ho e sse nti a lly

pr ov ide d th e same opinion as the “ne w” e x perts - tha t the v i cti m’s injury could have exis ted since birth. The prosec ution, on the other hand, r elied on i t s own expert witness to support its posi tion that the victim’s injuries were rec ently incurre d and wer e a result of shaking

. Clearly , the jury was pre sented wi th op po sin g the or ie s and re lie d o n th e pr os e c uti on ’s e vid e nc e po int ingto s hake n b a by sy nd ro me in determining Howar d’s g ui l t b ey o n d a rea sonable doubt. The district c ourt deter mined that the testimony of the two a dditional ex pert witnesse s would be mere ly cumulative. A re view of the “new ” evide nce, inde pendently and collec tively , simply

does not le ad to the

c on c lus ion

that it is m or e lik e ly

tha n n ot t hat no re a so na

ble jur or wo uld have fo un d H ow a rd g uil ty bey ond a re asonable doubt. The evide nce r elied upon by Howar d is not new evidenc e “so strong that8

a c o urt c a n n o t h a v e c o n f id e n c e in th e o u tc o me o f th e tr ia l. ” S chlup , 513 U.S. at 316. Wit hout evidenc e like “exculpatory scientific evidenc e, trustworthy ey ewitness acc ounts, or critica l phy sical evidenc e – that was not pre sented a t trial,” id. a t 32 4. Ho wa rd ’s re lia nc e on the “ ne w” e xpe rt

re po rt s fail s t o m ee t the actua l innocence standard. A ccor dingly , the district court did not err in deny ing Howar d’s claim for

fede ral ha

beas r elief ba sed on ac tual innocenc e. IV . CO NC LU SION Ba sed on the a

bove, the district cour

t’s or der g ranting Warden Wolfe’s motion to dismi ss and dis mis sin g wi th p re

jud ic e the pe tit ion

fo r w ri t of

ha be a s c or pu s is AF F IR M ED

.