FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT MARCH 16, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T 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. 04- 13175

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -002 49 -C V -1-C A R -5 L E W I S B O G A N , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s P A U L T H O M P S O N , W a r d e n , T e lf a irS ta te P r is 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 M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ar c h 16, 2006) B efo re C A RN E S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

I n 1997 L e w i s B oga n w a s c onvi c t e d byaj uryi n G e or gi as t a t e c ourtof one c ounte a c h of

the f tby r e c e i vi ng s t ol e n pr ope rty , a ggr a va t e d a s s aul t , a nd r obbe ry by s udde n s na t c hi ng. B oga n w a s gi ve n c ons e c ut i ve s e nt e nc e s of tw e ntyy e a r s w i thout pa r ol e f ore a c h c ount , ors i xty y e a r s i n t ot a l . H e appe a l e d t o the G e or gi aC ourtof A ppe a l s , w hi c h a f

f i rm e d the c onvi c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e s i n 2001, a nd B oga n di d not fi l e apet i t i on for c ert i orar i i n the G eorgi a S up re m e C ou rt . W hi l e hi s app ea l w as pend i ng before the G eorgi a C ou rtof A pp ea l s, B og an al so soug htst at e habeas corpus re l i ef

, w hi ch w as ul t i m at el y deni ed i n 2 00 2. T he G eorgi a S up re m e C ou rt deni ed B og an’ s s ub se qu entappl i ca t i on for ace rt i fi ca t e of probabl e c ause t o app ea l i n 2003. S h o rtlyth e r e a f

te r , B o g a n f

ile d af e d e r a l h ab e a s c o rp u s p e titio n p u r s u a n t to 28 U . S . C . § 2254 i n the M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof G e or gi a . T he di s tr i c tc ourtr e j e c t e d the m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s i ni t i al re com m endat i on thatthe pet i t i on be di sm i ss ed as unt i m e l y , buti ta c c e pt e d the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s l a t e rr e c om m e nda t i on tha tthe pe t i t i on be di s m i s s e d on the gr ound tha ta l l of the c l a i m s w e r e pr oc e dur a l l yba rr e d. A do pt i ng thatre po rtand recom m endat i on , the courtdeni ed B og an’ s habea s p e titio n . T h is is B o g a n ’s ap p e a l. W e g r a n te d h im ac e rtif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility ( C O A ) w h ic h s p e c if

ie d th e f o llo w in g is s u e s :3

W hether app el l antprocedural l y def aul t ed hi s c l ai m s thathe re ce i ved 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 w h e n c o u n s e l f a ile d to ( 1 ) a d e q u a te ly pr e pa r e f ortr i a l , ( 2) i nt e rvi e w ke yw i tne s s e s , ( 3) m ove t o s e ve rc ount o n e, recei v i n g st o l en p ro p erty, fro m th e rem ai n i n g co u n t s, (4 ) req u est ju ry in s tru c tio n s o n le s s e rin c lu d e d o f f e n s e s , ( 5 ) r e s e rv e o b

je c tio n s to the j ury i ns truc t i ons , ( 6) m ove t o s uppr e s s the vi c t i m ’ s i de nt i f i c a t i on t es t i m on y, and (7) subp oena w i tness es on hi s behal f. L a t e r , a f t e rar ound of

br i e f i ng, w e appoi nt e d c ouns e l f orB oga n a nd or de r e d supp l em ent al bri ef

i ng , di re ct i ng thatcoun se l “ [a ] s asub-partof the . . . i ss ue se t forth i n the C O A ” a dd re ss the fol l ow i ng i ss ue: W h e th e rLe w i s Bo g a n ’ s i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

tr i a l c o u n s e l c l a i ms a r e pr oc e dur a l l y de f

aul t e d by hi s f

a i l i ng on di r e c tappe a l t o appl yf or c e rt i or a r i r e vi e w by the G e or gi aS upr e m e C ourt , a s r e qui r e d by N e l s on v. S c hof

e l d, 371 F . 3d 768, 769- 70 ( 11th C i r . 2004) , w he n the re ce nt l y am ended G eorgi a S up re m e C ou rtR ul e 40 requi re s onl y that r e lie f b e d e n ie d b y th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls o f

G e o r g iato e x h au s t s ta te re m edi es ; and, i f r evi ew by the G eorgi a S up re m e C ou rti s notre qu i re d for e xh aust i on , w hether B og an’ s s even i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of tri al c ouns e l c l a i m s w e r e f

a i r l y pr e s e nt e d i n hi s di r e c tappe a l t o the G eo rg i a C o u rto f A p p eal s. B o th c o u rt- ap p o in te d c o u n s e l f o rB o g a n a n d c o u n s e l f

o rth e S ta te d id f

ile s u p p le m e n ta l b r ie f

s . T he m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s r eportand recom m endat i on , w hi ch the di stri ctcourt a dopt e d, doe s note xpl a i n w hy B oga n’ s c l a i m s a r e pr oc e dur a l l yde f aul t e d. T he S tate o f G eo rg ia h as ex p li citl y w aiv ed in th is C o u rt an y a rg u m en t th at B o g an ’s h ab e a s c l a i ms w e r e p r o c e d u r a l l y b a rr e d u n d e rO ’ Su l l i v a n v . Bo e r c k e l , 5 2 6 U . S. 838, 119 S . C t . 1728 ( 1999) , be c aus e of hi s f a i l ur e t o s e e k c e rt i or a r i r e vi e w i n the4

G e o r g iaS u p r e m e C o u rt o f th e G e o r g iaC o u rt o f

A p p e a ls ’ d e c is io n a f

f irm in g h is co n v icti o n an d se n ten ce . In stea d , th e S tate se ek s a ff irm an ce o f th e d istrict co u rt’s j ud gm enton the grou nd thatthe cl ai m s B og an i s pursui ng i n thi s f eder al habeas a c tio n w e r e n o t f

a ir lyp r e s e n te d in h is ap p e a l to th e G e o r g iaC o u rt o f A p p e a ls . P ur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2254( b) ( 1) , “ [ h] abe a s pe t i t i one r s ge ne r a l l yc a nnot ra i se cl ai m s i n federa l courti f tho se cl ai m s w er e notfi rs texhaust ed i n st at e c ou rt . ” M c N a i rv. C a m pbe l l , 416 F . 3d 1291, 1302 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ; s e e a l s o K e l l e yv. S e c ’ y f orD e p’ tof

C orr . , 377 F . 3d 1317, 1343 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . “ [ O ] nc e the f e de r a l c l a i m ha s be e n f

a i r l y pr e s e nt e d t o the s t a t e c ourt s , the e xhaus t i on r e qui r e m e nti s s a t i s f

i e d. ” P i c a r d v. C onnor , 404 U . S . 270, 275, 92 S . C t . 509, 512 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ; s e e a ls o A n d e r s o n v . H a r le s s , 4 5 9 U .S . 4 , 6 , 1 0 3 S . C t. 2 7 6 , 2 7 7 ( 1 9 8 2 ) .

“ T he pet i t i on erm ustpres enthi s c l ai m s t o the st at e c ou rt s s uch thatthey are pe rm i tt e d the ‘ opportuni ty t o appl yc ontr ol l i ng l e ga l pr i nc i pl e s t o the f a c t s be a r i ng upon ( hi s ) c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m . ’ ” K e l l e y , 377 F . 3d a t1344 ( quot i ng P i c a r d, 404 U . S . a t277, 92 S . C t . a t513 ( a l t e r a t i on i n or i gi na l ) ) . I n c a s e s s uc h a s thi s one i nv ol vi ng i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l cl ai m s, w e have hel d that“ a habeas p e titio n e rm a y n o t p r e s e n t in s ta n c e s o f 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 in h is 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 ng l et ary, 97 8 F . 2d 12 07 , 12 11 (11th C i r. 19 92 ). H ow ever , i ti s notnece ss ary5

tha tthe pe t i t i one rpr e s e nti n the f e de r a l habe a s pr oc e e di ng “ ave rba t i m r e s t a t e m e nt o f th e cl ai m s b ro u g h ti n st at e co u rt . ” M cN ai r, 4 1 6 F . 3 d at1 3 0 2 . W i th th ese pri nci pl es i n m i nd , w e w i l l go do w n B og an’ s c l ai m s one by on e. T h e f ir s t c la im c o v e r e d b y th e C O A is th a t h is tr ia l c o u n s e l f a ile d to adequat el y pre pare for tri al . In hi s pro se fe dera l habeas pet i t i on B og an al l eges that : “ C ou nsel fa i l ed t o p roperl y pre pare sa i d cas e f or tri al w hi ch i s dee pl y r oo t ed i n the f unda m e nt a l pr i nc i pl e s of the S i xth a nd F ourt e e nth A m e ndm e nt [ s ] unde rthe U ni t e d S t a t e s C ons t i tut i on. ” T he S t a t e a r gue s tha tthi s c l a i m doe s notm a t c h the is s u e B o g a n a r g u e d to th e G e o r g iaC o u rt o f A p p e a ls . I n th e b r ie f

B o g a n f ile d in thatcourt , ho w ever , he ar gu ed that“ [t ] ri al coun se l ’ s f ai l ure t o adequ at el y pre pare the ca se for tri al and i nt ervi ew and sub po ena w i tness [e s] for the defense w as to ta llyin e f

f e c tiv e ,” a n d f

u rth e rs p e c if

ie d th a t “tr ia l c o u n s e l d id n o t a tte m p t to i nt e rvi e w a ny of

the s i xt e e n ( 16) w i tne s s e s i de nt i f i e d bythe S t a t e . ” T he r e i s no d is p a r ityb e tw e e n h is a r g u m e n t th e r e a n d h is c la im in h is f e d e r a l h ab e a s p e titio n . S o faras w e c an t el l al l of the w i tness es thatB og an no w ar gu es hi s tri al coun se l shou l d h ave i nt ervi ew ed i n o rdert o p re pare for tri al ar e a m on g the w i tness es that w er e i dent i fi ed by the S t at e. T h e s e c o n d c la im c o v e r e d b yth e C O A , w h ic h is r e la te d to th e f ir s t o n e , is th a t c o u n s e l r e n d e r e d in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e b yf

a ilin g to in te rv ie w k e yw itn e s s e s .6

T he fe dera l habeas pet i t i on al l eges that : “ C ou nsel fa i l ed t o i nt ervi ew key pot ent i al w i tne s s e s tha tw oul d ha ve pr ove n tha the di d nottryt o s e l l atruc k, a nd w oul d ha ve hel ped t o d i sc re di tthe t es t i m on y of the S t at e’ s w i tness es . ” T he bri ef B og an fi l ed i n the G eorgi a C ou rtof A pp ea l s i dent i fi ed tho se tw o w i tness es as R ob by H ug hes and D eputy F ord, thu s provi di ng even m ore s peci fi ci ty than h e gave i n the fe dera l h ab eas p et i t i o n . T h e i d en t i fi cat i o n o f an o th er w i tn ess i n B o g an ’ s i n i t i al o r p ro se b r ie f to th is C o u rt d o e s n o t c h a n g e o u rc o n c lu s io n th a t th e c la im w a s f a ir ly p r e s e n te d in s ta te c o u rt. T h e th ir d c la im c o v e r e d in th e C O A is th a t tr ia l c o u n s e l f a ile d to m o v e to se ver the re ce i ptof st ol en prop erty c ou ntfr om the others . T he fe dera l habeas pe t i t i on a l l e ge s tha t : “ C ouns e l f a i l e d t o f i l e am ot i on t o s e ve rC ountO ne f r om the rem ai n i n g co u n t s o f th e i n d i ctm en t . ” In h i s b ri ef t o th e G eo rg i a C o u rto f A p p eal s, B og an ar gu ed that“ [b] y f ai l i ng t o fi l e am ot i on t o sever , the defense coun se l w as in e f f e c tiv e ,” h e s p e c if

ie d an u m b e ro f

w a y s in w h ic h th e c o u n ts w e r e s u f f ic ie n tly un re l at ed thati tw ou l d h ave been error nott o severthe coun t s i f am ot i on had b ee n f i l e d, a nd he a s s e rt e d tha thi s c ha nc e of a c qui tt a l w oul d ha ve be e n gr e a t e rw i th a s e v e r a n c e . Th e c l a i m wa s f a i r l y p r e s e n t e d i n s t a t e c o u rta s t o th o s e g r o u n d s . To th e e x te n t th a t B o g a n is n o w a r g u in g th e a d d itio n a l g r o u n d th a t as e v e r a n c e s h o u ld have been soug htand w ou l d h ave been grant ed on venu e groun ds, thatcl ai m w as7

n o t f a ir lyp r e s e n te d to th e s ta te c o u rts . T o th a t e x te n t a lo n e , th is c la im is pr oc e dur a l l y ba rr e d. ( B oga n ha s f a i l e d t o pr of

f e rc aus e a nd pr e

j udi c e , a nd he c a n n o t p lau s ib lya r g u e th a t am is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e w ill r e s u lt f

r o m th e f a ilu r e to deci de thi s c l ai m on the m er i t s. ) T he fourth i ss ue covered i n the C O A i s thattri al coun se l re nd er ed i neff ec t i ve as si st ance by fa i l i ng t o requestj ury i nstruct i on s on l es se r i ncl ud ed o ffen ses. T h e fed eral h ab eas p et i t i o n al l eg es th at : “ T ri al co u n sel fai l ed t o req u est ju ry in s tru c tio n s m a in lyp o s s ib le le s s e rin c lu d e d o f f e n s e s .” I n h is s ta te ap p e lla te courtbri ef

B og an ar gu ed thatcoun se l w as i neff ec t i ve because , “ defe nse c ou nsel di d notf i l e a ny pr opos e d j ury i ns truc t i ons , ” a nd di d not“ r e que s tj uryi ns truc t i ons or ant[on any? ] po ss i bl e l es se r i ncl ud ed offe nses . ” T h e r e is n o p r o c e d u r a l d e f au lt th e r e . T he f

i f th i s s ue c ove r e d i n the C O A i s tha ttr i a l c ouns e l r e nde r e d i ne f f e c t i ve as si st ance by fa i l i ng t o res erve obj ec t i on s t o the j ury i nstruct i on s. T he fe dera l h ab e a s p e titio n a lle g e s th a t: “T r ia l c o u n s e l f a ile d to r e s e rv e d e f

e n d a n t’s r ig h t to obj ec tt o the court ’ s i nstruct i on s t o the j ury. ” In hi s s t at e app el l at e c ou rtbri ef B o g a n a r g u e d e x a c tlyth e s a m e th in g : “T r ia l c o u n s e l’s f a ilu r e to r e s e rv e h is obj e c t i ons t o the C ourt ’ s c ha r ge t o the j uryc ons t i tut e d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of8

c o u n s e l a n d r e q u ir e s th e c o n v ic tio n to b e s e t a s id e .” T h e r e is n o p r o c e d u r a l d e f au lt th e r e . T he s i xth i s s ue c ove r e d i n the C O A i s tha ttr i a l c ouns e l r e nde r e d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e by f

a i l i ng t o m ove t o s uppr e s s the vi c t i m ’ s i de nt i f i c a t i on t e s t i m ony . T he fe d er al h ab ea s p etit io n alleg es th at: “ T rial co u n se l failed to su p p re ss th e v icti m ’s t es t i m on y of i dent i fi ca t i on . ” I n h i s s t at e app el l at e c ou rtbri ef B og an ar gu ed that coun se l w as i neff

ec t i ve because he fa i l ed t o renew a f i l ed m ot i on t o sup pres s once i tbe c a m e obvi ous tha tthe vi c t i m s w e r e goi ng t o of f e rs om e i n- c ourti de nt i f i c a t i on of the de f e nda nt . T he r e i s note nough of adi f f e r e nc e f orus t o c onc l ude tha tthe s ta te c o u rts d id n o t h a v e af a iro p p o rtu n ityto ru le o n B o g a n ’s c la im th a t h is c ouns e l w a s i ne f

f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng t o ha ve the vi c t i m s ’ i de nt i f i c a t i on t e s t i m ony s u p p r e s s e d . F i nal l y, the se venth i ss ue covered i n the C O A i s thattri al coun se l re nd er ed i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e by f

a i l i ng t o s ubpoe naw i tne s s e s on B oga n’ s be ha l f . T he f e d e r a l h ab e a s p e titio n a lle g e s th a t: “T r ia l c o u n s e l f a ile d to s u b p o e n aw itn e s s e s in pe t i t i one r ’ s tr i a l w ho w e r e a va i l abl e t o he l p s ubs t a nt i a t e hi s i nnoc e nc e dur i ng the g u ilt- in n o c e n c e p h a s e o f h is tr ia l th u s v io la tin g h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t.” I n h is s t a t e appe l l a t e c ourtbr i e f B oga n a r gue d tha tc ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve be c aus e he9

f a ile d to s u b p o e n aw itn e s s e s f o rth e d e f

e n s e . T h is c la im is n o t p r o c e d u r a lly d e f au lte d . F orthe s e r e a s ons , the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntde ny i ng the habe a s pe t i t i on a s p r o c e d u r a llyd e f

au lte d is R E V E R S E D in s o f a ra s th e c la im s e x p lic itlylis te d in the C O A ar e c on ce rned, exce ptt o the ext entthatB og an i s c l ai m i ng thattri al c ouns e l w a s i ne f

f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng t o s e e k as e ve r a nc e of the f i r s tc ounton ve nue gr ounds . T o tha te xt e nt , a nd t o the e xt e ntof anyc l a i m s note xpl i c i t l yl i s t e d i n the COA, th e j u d g me n to f

th e d i s tr i c tc o u rti s AFFI RM ED. Th e c a s e i s RE M AN DED t o the di stri ctcourtfor f urther procee di ng s c on si st entw i th thi s opi ni on . In r e m a n d in g th e c a s e , w e im p lyn o v ie w o n th e m e r its o f a n yis s u e . RE V E RS E D i n p a r t , AF F I RME D i n p a r t , a n d RE MAND E D.