2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C ir c uit 2-16-2006 

# T ome v . S tickm an P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-1286

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2006

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

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " T ome v . S t ickm an" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1574. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2006/1574NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T

OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 04- 1286 CH RI STOPHER M . TOM E,

A ppel l ant v. W IL L IA M S . S T IC K M A N ; T H E D IS T R IC T A T T O R N E Y O F T H E C O U N T Y O F L A N C A S T E R ; T H E A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E S T A T E O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

O n A pp eal F rom the U nit ed S t at es

D istri ct C o u rt Forthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 03- cv- 04174) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . L e g ro m e D . D a v is Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber12, 2005 BE F OR E : S L OVI T E R, S M I T H a n d S T AP L E T ON,

C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: February16, 2006)2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge: A ppel l antC hr i s t opherT om e ( “Tom e”) appea l s the deni al of hi s pet i t i on forhabea s corpus r el i ef. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed Tom e’ s pet i t i on on the gr ounds thathe had f ai l ed to e x h a u s t h is c la im s in s ta te c o u rta n d th a t th o s e c la im s w e re n o w p ro c e d u ra lly d e f a u lte d . A m o ti o n s p an el of

o u r co u rtg ran ted a ce rt ifi ca te of ap p ea labili tyw ith resp ec t t o T o m e’s cl ai m thathe w as deni ed ef fec t i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i n connec t i on w i th the entryof h is g u ilty p le a . W e w ill a f f ir m th e d e c is io n o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . T om e pl ed gui l tyi n the Lancas t erC ountyC our tof C om m on Pl eas t o num er ous offe ns es , i ncl udi ng arm ed r obbery , bur gl ary , theftof m ot orvehi cl es and es cape . T he c o u r ts e n t e n c e d To me t o f i f t e e n t o th i r tyy e a r s o f

i mp r i s o n me n t , c o n s i s t e n twi th th e t e r ms o f a n e g o tia te d p le a a g re e m e n t. A ft erfi l i ng a not i ce of

appea l on T om e’ s behal f, T om e’ s tr i al couns el s oughtand w as gr ant ed l eave t o w i thdr aw hi s r epr es ent at i on beca us e Tom e des i r ed t o r ai s e cl ai m s of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el . H ow ever , fol l ow i ng the appoi nt m entof new couns el , T om e w i thdr ew and di s cont i nued hi s appea l . T he Super i orC our tm arked the appea l di s cont i nued.3

T om e then fi l ed a pro se p e tit io n u n d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia’ s P o st C o n v ictio n R e lief A c t, 42 Pa. C ons . St at . § 9541 et s eq. ( “PC R A ”) . T he PC R A courtappoi nt ed new couns el for T om e. T om e’ s PC R A couns el s aw no m er i ti n T om e’ s cl ai m s , fi l ed a “ no m er i t ” l ett er pur s uantt o C om m onw eal th v. F i nl ey , 550 A . 2d 213 ( Pa. Super . 1988) , and r eques t ed p e rm iss io n to w ith d ra w a s c o u n se l. W h e n th e P C R A c o u rt th e n n o tifie d T o m e o f its i nt ent i on t o di s m i s s the PC R A pet i t i on w i thouta hea r i ng, T om e fi l ed “D efe ndant ’ s Pr oSe R es pons e t o PC R A C our t ’ s N ot i ce of I nt entt o D i s m i s s PC R A Pet i t i on. ” I n that d o c u me n t , To me r a i s e d , f o rth e f i r s tt i me i n s t a t e c o u r t , th e f o l l o wi n g c l a i m: De f e n d a n twa s d e n i e d e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

P CRA c o u n s e l , i n th a tP CRA couns el fai l ed t o fi l e an a m ended PC R A Pet i t i on, i n thatD efe ndantw as d e n ied h is C o n stitu tio n a l R ig h t to e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

trial c o u n se l, i n thattr i al couns el i nduced D efe ndant ’ s gui l typl ea, i n thatD efe ndantw as m e n ta lly in c o m p e te n t to e n te r a k n o w in g [ ] a n d in te llig e n t g u ilty p le a [ .] D e f.’s R e s p . N o tic e In te n t D is m is s a t 5 , Co mmo n we a l th v . T o me , N o s. 8 8 2 -2 0 8 4 (P a . C t. C om m . Pl . M ay10, 2001) . T he C om m on Pl eas C our tdi s m i s s ed Tom e’ s pet i t i on w i thout a h e a ri n g . T om e fi l ed a pr o s e a p p e a l o f th e d e n ial o f

h is P C R A p e tit io n to th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p e ri o r C o u rt . In th a t a p p e a l, T o m e ra is e d , in tera lia , th e f o l l o wi n g i s s u e f

o rr e v i e w: W hetherthe l ow ercourterr ed i n fai l i ng t o fi nd appel l antw as deni ed e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

P C R A c o u n se l, i n th a t P C R A c o u n se l f a iled to advanc e the cl ai m of tr i al couns el ’ s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance , i n thattr i al c o u n se l in d u c e d a p p e llan t’s g u iltyp lea , in th a t ap p e llan t w a s m e n tally i ncompet entt o ent era vol unt ary , i nt el l i gentand know i ng gui l typl ea? A p p . a t 2 1 8 .4

T he Super i orC our tdeni ed Tom e’ s appea l . W i th r es pectt o T om e’ s cl ai m thathe w as denied effecti ve assi st ance o f P C R A cou nsel du e t o P C R A cou nsel ’s fai l ure t o rai se i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el , the Super i orC our tfol l ow ed C om m onw eal th v. Lasz cz yns ki , 715 A . 2d 1185 ( Pa. Super . 1988) , and rul ed thatT om e had no mer i t or i ous i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el cl ai m forPC R A couns el t o as s ertbeca us e the Penns y l vani a s t atut e governi ng i neff ect i venes s chal l enges t o gui l typl eas r equi r ed a s how i ng of ac tual i nnocenc e and Tom e di d notas s erthi s i nnocenc e. T om e s ubs equent l yfi l ed a pro se appl i cat i on forr ear gum entw i th the Super i or C our tand, aft erthatw as di s m i s s ed, a pro se pet i t i on foral l ow ance of appe al w i th the P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt , w h ic h w a s d e n ie d o n M a rc h 2 8 , 2 0 0 3 . T om e then fi l ed a pro se pet i t i on forhabea s corpus i n the D i s tr i ctC our t , r ai s i ng, in tera lia , a cl ai m thathe w as deni ed hi s fede r al r i ghtt o eff ect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el dur i ng hi s pl ea pr ocee di ngs . T he D i s tr i ctC our trul ed thatT om e’ s fede r al in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

trial c o u n se l cla im w a s n e v e r e x h a u ste d in th e sta te a p p e llate court s . B eca us e s uch a c l ai m coul d now be r ai s ed onl yi n a s econd PC R A pet i t i on and s uch a pe t i t i on w oul d be barr ed bythe PC R A ’ s one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , the D i s tr i ct Co u r tru l e d th a tth e c l a i m wa s p r o c e d u r a l l yd e f a u l t e d . Th e Co u r tc o n c l u d e d th a tTo me had nots how n caus e ora funda m ent al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce t o excus e the def aul tand, co n seq u en tl y , the C o u rtco u ld n o t r ev iew T o m e’s c lai m . A m o ti o n s p an el of o u r C o u rt gr ant ed a c ert i fi cat e of appeal abi l i tyas t o T om e’ s cl ai m thathe w as deni ed ef fec t i ve5

as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el dur i ng the pl ea pr ocee di ngs , w hi ch i ncl uded the r el at ed i s s ue of w h e th e r t h a t c la im is p ro c e d u ra lly d e f a u lte d . T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overT om e’ s pet i t i on forhabea s corpus pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der w i th r es pectt o thos e i s s ues encompas s ed bythe ce r t i fi cat e of appeal abi l i tyunder28 U .S .C . § § 1 2 9 1 & 2 2 5 3 . S e e L a m b e rt v . B la c kw e ll , 387 F. 3d 210, 230 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . “W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s l egal concl us i ons i n a habe as pr ocee di ng, i ncl udi ng i t s r es ol ut i on of l egal ques t i ons ar i s i ng fr om appl i cat i on of the pr ocedur al defa ul tdoctr i ne. ” V i l l otv. V ar ner , 373 F. 3d 327, 331 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( ci t at i ons o m itte d ). T o m e se e k s to ra ise a c laim th a t h e w a s d e p riv e d o f h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to ef fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel w h en h is tri al co u rtatt o rne y“ind u ce d ” h im to en ter a gui l typl ea, even though T om e w as m ent al l yi ncapabl e of e nt er i ng a know i ng, i nt el l i gent a n d v o l u n t a ryp l e a a tth a tt i me . He d i d n o tr a i s e th i s c l a i m i n th e P e n n s y l v a n i a c o u r t s . He di d, how ever , r ai s e a r el at ed cl ai m befor e the Super i orC our ti n hi s PC R A pr ocee di ngs th a t h e w a s “ d e n ied e f

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

P C R A c o u n se l, i n th a t P C R A c o u n se l f a iled to a d v a n c e th e c laim o f

trial c o u n se l’s in e f

f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e .” A p p . at 2 1 8 . W e a g re e w ith the D i s tr i ctC our tthatT om e di d notpr es entthi s cl ai m t o the Super i orC our tas a fe der al c la im . “A s t at e pr i s onerm us texhaus thi s s t at e courtr emedi es befor e a f eder al courtm ay6

gr anthi m habea s r el i ef. ” L am bert , 387 F. 3d at231. T he exha us t i on r equi r ementgi ves s t at es “the opportuni tyt o pas s upon and corr ectal l eged vi ol at i ons of i t s pr i s oner s ’ fede r al r i ght s . ” B aldw i n v. R eese , 541 U . S. 27, 29 ( 2004) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . “To provi de the St at e w i th the nec es s ary‘ oppor tuni ty , ’ the pr i s onerm us t‘ fai r l ypr es ent ’ hi s cl ai m i n eac h appr opr i at e s t at e court. . . , ther ebyal ert i ng thatcourtt o the fe der al natur e of the cl ai m . ” I d. Fai rpr es ent at i on “r equi r es thatthe cl ai m br oughti n fede r al courtbe the s ubs t ant i al e q u iv a len t o f

th a t p re se n ted to th e sta te c o u rts. B o th th e leg a l th e o rya n d th e f a c ts u n d e rp i n n i n g th e f

e d e r a l c l a i m mu s th a v e b e e n p r e s e n t e d t o th e s t a t e c o u r t s , a n d th e s a me m ethod of l egal anal y s i s m us tbe ava i l abl e t o the s t at e courtas w i l l be empl oy ed i n the fede r al court . ” E vans v. C our tof C om m on P l eas , 959 F. 2d 1227, 1231 ( 3d C i r . 1992) (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). “W hen a c l ai m i s notexhaus t ed bec aus e i thas notbeen ‘ fai r l ypr es ent ed’ t o the sta te c o u rts, b u t sta te p ro c e d u ra l ru les b a r th e a p p lica n t f ro m se e k in g f

u rth e r re lief

in sta te c o u rts, th e e x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n t is sa tisf ied b e c a u se th e re is ‘a n a b se n c e o f a v a ilab le St at e corr ect i ve pr oces s . ’ ” McC andl es s v. V aughn , 172 F. 3d 255, 260 ( 3d C i r . 1999) (q u o tin g 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (b )). “ In su c h c a se s, h o w e v e r, ap p lica n ts a re c o n sid e re d to have pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed thei rcl ai m s and fe der al court s m aynotcons i derthe mer i t s of s uch cl ai m s unl es s the appl i cantes t abl i s hes ‘ caus e and pr ej udi ce’ ora ‘ fundament al m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce’ t o excus e hi s orherdefa ul t . ” I d. I n B a ldw in , the S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t a p e tit io n e r w h o h a d a rg u e d to th e sta te7

cou rt s that hi s “ tria l couns el ’ s conductvi ol at ed s ever al pr ovi s i ons of the Feder al C ons t i tut i on, ” but“di d nots aythathi s s epar at e appel lat e ‘in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e ’ c laim vi ol at ed f

eder allaw ,” h a d n o t p ro p e rlya ler ted th e sta te c o u rts to th e f e d e ra l n a tu re o f

h is cl ai m of i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of appe l l at e couns el . 541 U . S. at30. T he C our tnot ed that the s t at e pos t - convi ct i on pet i t i on di d not“expl i ci t l ys aythatthe w or ds ‘ i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of appe l l at e couns el ’ r efe rt o a fe der al cl ai m . ” I d. at33. Fur ther , the fa ctthat the pet i t i on r efe rr ed “t o pr ovi s i ons of the Feder al C ons t i tut i on i n r es pectt o other cl ai m s” d id n o t a le rtth e s ta te c o u rt s to th e f e d e ra l n a tu re o f

th e a p p e lla te in e f

f e c tiv e n e s s c la im . I d. B a ldw in r equi r es a conc l us i on thatT om e fa i l ed t o al ertthe s t at e court s t o the fede r al natur e of hi s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el cl ai m . T om e pr es ent ed t o the sta te c o u rts a c laim th a t h e w a s d e n ied e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

P C R A c o u n se l w h e n h is PC R A couns el fai l ed t o as s ertthatT om e w as deni ed ef fec t i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el b e c a u se h is tria l co u n se l “in d u c e d ” T o m e ’s g u iltyp lea , ev e n th o u g h T o m e w a s m e n tally in c o m p e ten t to e n ter a v o lu n tar y , k n o w in g a n d in tellig e n t g u iltyp lea . T h is c laim nece s s ar i l yi ncl udes tw o under l y i ng cl ai m s : the fi r s tunder l y i ng cl ai m i s thathi s tr i al couns el w as i neff

ect i ve; the s econd i s thathi s gui l typl ea w as i nvol unt ary . B efor e the C o m m o n P lea s C o u rt, T o m e re f e rre d to th e f

irst u n d e rly in g c laim a s a d e n ial o f h is “C ons t i tut i onal ” r i ghtt o the ef fec t i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el . O n appea l t o the Super i orC our t , T om e onl yr efe rr ed t o “tr i al couns el ’ s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance . ”8

T h e c la im T o m e ra is e d in th e S u p e ri o r C o u rtw a s n o t id e n tif ie d a s a f e d e ra l c la im . In d e e d , th e re is n o f

e d e ra l r ig h t to e f

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

p o s t- c o n v ic tio n c o u n s e l. P enns ylvani a v. F i nl ey , 4 8 1 U .S . 5 5 1 , 5 5 5 (1 9 8 7 ) (“ O u r c a se s e sta b lish th a t th e rig h t to appoi nt ed couns el ext ends t o the fi r s tappea l of r i ght , and no further . ”) . E ven l ooki ng pas tthe fa ctthatT om e pr es ent ed hi s tr i al couns el i neff ect i venes s cl ai m l ay er ed w i thi n an over ar chi ng s t at e l aw cl ai m , T om e fa i l ed t o gr ound the fi r s tunder l y i ng cl ai m for i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el i n fede r al l aw and, under s t andabl y , the Super i or C o u rt d e c id e d it o n sta te la w g ro u n d s. R e a d g e n e ro u sly , T o m e p e rh a p s g ro u n d e d h is d e e p e st u n d e rly in g c laim , h is c h a llen g e to th e v o lu n tar in e ss o f h is g u iltyp lea , in p a rt in fede r al l aw thr ough ci t at i on of Mor r is v. Slappy , 461 U . S. 1 ( 1983) , and U ni t ed Stat es v. C o le , 8 1 3 F . 2 d 4 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). U n d er B a ldw in , tha t is n o t su f f icie n t to a ler t sta te co u rt s to the fe d era l natu re o f h is cl aim fo r i n ef fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f tri al co u n sel. In B a ldw in , even though the pet i t i onerhad s quar el ygr ounded an unde r l y i ng cl ai m for i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el i n fede r al l aw , the Supr eme C our trul ed thatthe p e tit io n e r h a d f

a iled to a ler t th e sta te c o u rts to th e f e d e ra l n a tu re o f

a n o v e ra rc h in g c laim fori neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of appe l l at e couns el . 541 U . S. at32. C ons equent l y , w e ca nnot s aythatT om e al ert ed the s t at e court s t o the fe der al natur e of hi s cl ai m fori neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el , w hen onl yhi s under l y i ng cl ai m of an i nvol unt arygui l typl ea re f e re n c e d f

e d e ra l la w . B a ldw in lef

t o p e n th e p o ss ib ili tyth a t if a p e tit io n e r p re se n ts a sta te c laim th a t sta te9

court s eval uat e undera s t andar d i dent i cal t o the fe der al s t andar d, then pr es ent at i on of that cl ai m m i ghtbe s uffi ci entt o m eet§ 2254( b) ’ s exhaus t i on r equi r ement s . 541 U . S. at33- 34 ( expr es s l ydecl i ni ng t o cons i derar gum entthatw her e s t at e s t andar d fori neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i s i dent i cal t o fede r al s t andar d, a pet i t i onerneed noti ndi cat e a cl ai m ’ s fede r al natur e) . I ti s gener al l ytrue thatthe “t es tforcouns el i neff ect i venes s i s the s ame underboth the Penns y l vani a and Fede r al C ons t i tut i ons : i ti s the per form ance and pr ej udi ce t es ts etforth i n Str i ckland v. W as hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668, 104 S. C t . 2052, 80 L . E d. 2d 674 ( 1984) . ” C o m m o n w e a lth v . G rib b le , 8 6 3 A .2 d 4 5 5 , 4 6 0 (P a . 2 0 0 4 ). H o w e v e r, th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p e rio r C o u rt d e c id e d T o m e ’s c a se a t a tim e w h e n it i nt erpr et ed a Penns y l vani a s t atut e, 42 Pa. C ons . St at . § 9543( a) ( 2) ( i i i ) , t o i m pos e an in n o c e n c e re q u ire m e n t f o r c laim s o f

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

c o u n se l re latin g to g u ilty p le a s . C om

pa re C om m onw eal th v. Lasz cz yns ki , 7 1 5 A . 2 d 1 1 8 5 , 1 1 8 7 -88 (P a. S u p er. 1 9 9 8 ) ( a n a lyzi n g p le a -r e la te d in e f f e c tiv e n e s s c la im u n d e r 4 2 P a . C o n s . S ta t. § 9543( a) ( 2) ( i i i ) , w hi ch r equi r es i nnocenc e, beca us e s t atut e governs pl eas of gui l tand c la im s o f u n la w f u l in d u c e m e n t in c o n n e c tio n w ith a p le a o f g u ilt) , w ith C o m m o n w e a lth ex rel . D adari o v. G oldberg , 773 A . 2d 126, 130 ( Pa. 2001) ( hol di ng thatcl ai m s of in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l ar isin g f

ro m p lea b a rg a in in g p ro c e ss a re c o g n iza b le underPC R A ’ s i neff

ect i venes s s ubs ect i on, 42 Pa. C ons . St at . § 9543( a) ( 2) ( i i ) , w hi ch does n o t re q u ire in n o c e n c e ); C o m m o n w e a lth v. Lynch , 820 A . 2d 728, 730 ( Pa. Super . 2003) (sa m e ); s ee al

s o V i l l ot , 3 7 3 F . 3 d at 33 3 n . 5 (discu ssing ch an g e in P en n sy lvan ia l aw ). In10

V i l l ot , w e hel d thatthe i nnocenc e r equi r ementof § 9543( a) ( 2) ( i i i ) i s a s ubs t ant i ve re q u ire m e n t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia la w . 3 7 3 F .3 d a t 3 3 4 . U n d e r f e d e ra l law , b yc o n tra st, to s at i s fythe pr ej udi ce pr ong of Str i ckland att endantt o i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el c laim s, a d e f

e n d a n t w h o h a s p lea d e d g u iltyn e e d o n lysh o w “ th a t th e re is a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth a t, bu t f

o r c o u n se l’s e rro rs, h e w o u ld n o t h a v e p lea d e d g u iltya n d w o u ld have i ns i s t ed on goi ng t o tr i al . ” Hi l lv. L ockh art , 4 7 4 U . S . 5 2 , 5 9 (19 8 5 ). T h u s, T o m e’s fede r al cl ai m fori neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el i s notthe “s ubs t ant i al equi val ent of thatpr es ent ed t o the s t at e court s . ” E vans , 9 5 9 F .2 d a t 1 2 3 1 ; cf . Jack s on v. E dw ar ds , 4 0 4 F .3 d 6 1 2 , 6 2 1 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (h o ld in g th a t p e tit io n e r “ e x h a u ste d h is f e d e ra l cla im beca us e, i n thi s cas e, the l egal s t andar ds forhi s fede r al and s t at e cl ai m s w er e s o s i m i l ar th a t b yp re se n tin g h is s tate c laim , h e a lso p re se n ted h is f e d e ra l cla im ” ). T h u s, T o m e d id n o t “f a irlyp re se n t” h is f

e d e ra l in e f

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

trial c o u n se l cla im to th e sta te c o u rt s . T om e i s now t i m e barr ed fr om fi l i ng a s econd PC R A pet i t i on pr es ent i ng s uch a c la im . See 42 Pa. C ons . St at . § 9545( b) ( s ett i ng a one- y earj ur i s di ct i onal s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons forPC R A act i ons ) . C ons equent l y , the exha us t i on r equi r ementi s deemed s at i s fi ed bec aus e ther e i s “an abs ence of ava i l abl e St at e corr ect i ve pr oces s , ” butT om e has pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed hi s cl ai m and w e maynotcons i deri t s m er i t s unl es s he es t abl i s hes “ca us e and pr ej udi ce” ora “f undament al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce” t o excus e hi s defa ul ton h is c laim o f

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

trial c o u n se l in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e tak in g o f h isW h ile T o m e d id a ss e rt in th e S u p e rio r C o u rt in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

a p p e llate 1 couns el forfai l i ng t o fi l e a mot i on t o w i thdr aw hi s pl ea, thatcl ai m i s di s t i nctfr om the i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m T om e i dent i fi es as pr ovi di ng “ca us e” f orthe cl ai m s he here assert s. 11 p le a . McC an dles s, 172 F. 3d at260. T om e s ugges t s thatbeca us e he r ece i ved i neff ect i ve a ss ista n c e o f

a p p e llate c o u n se l, he h a s “ c a u se ” to e x c u se th e p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt o n h is cl ai m of i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el i n connec t i on w i th the t aki ng of hi s pl ea. B utfori neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of pr i orcouns el t o s erve as “ca us e” t o excus e a pr ocedur al d e f a u lt, h a b e a s p e tit io n e rs m u st f irst e x h a u st th e in e f

f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e c laim itse lf in sta te c o u rt , o r s h o w c a u s e a n d p re ju d ic e f o r t h a t f a ilu re to e x h a u s t. E dw ar ds v. C ar pent er , 529 U .S . 4 4 6 , 4 5 1 -5 2 (2 0 0 0 ); Mur r ay v. C ar r i er , 4 7 7 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 9 (1 9 8 6 ). T o m e f a iled to r ai s e thi s fede r al cl ai m of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of appe l l at e couns el i n s t at e court , and th a t c la im is th e re f

o re u n e x h a u s te d (o r d e e m e d e x h a u s te d , b u t p ro c e d u ra lly d e f a u lte d ). No th i n g p r e v e n t e d To me f r o m r a i s i n g s u c h a c l a i m i n h i s P CRA p r o c e e d i n g s a n d To me d o e s n o ta s s e r ta n yb a s i s t o e x c u s e h i s f a i l u r e t o a s s e r ts u c h a c l a i m. 1 T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r w ill b e a f f ir m e d .