H onor abl e J . W i l l i am D i t t er , J r . , Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct * C our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i tt i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL 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. 03- 3752 RO D N EY W ELL S, A ppel l ant

v. BEN VA RN ER; THE D I STRI CT A TTOR NEY OF TH E CO UN TY O F P HI LAD ELPHI A; THE 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

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 03- C V - 00727) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J a n E . D u B o is Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y16, 2010 B e f o re : F U E N T E S a n d V A N A S K IE , C ir c u it J u d g e s , and D I T T E R , Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge. * ( Fi l ed: A ugus t31, 2010) OPI NI ON O F THE COURTT h e a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt an d m u rd e r c h a rg e s a ro se o u t o f th e sh o o tin g d e a th o f

N o b le 1 G r een a nd the s er i ous w oundi ng of W i l l i am “B ud” J ohns on, m ember s of the 20 and th C arpent erSt r eetgang. G r een a nd J ohns on w er e s hoton J ul y16, 1983, at23 and Pi er ce rd S treeti n P hil adelphi a i n the l at e even i ng . T he C om m on w eal th’s theo ryw as that W el l s, C r ai g M urphy , and For d H ow ar d w er e the l eadi ng m ember s of a gr oup cal l ed “The Fam i l y , ” w hi ch enga ged i n ext ens i ve drug tr aff i cki ng i n Phi l adel phi a. T he C om m onw eal th pr es ent ed evi dence that“The Fam i l y ” w ant ed t o expand i t s bas e of drug s el l i ng oper at i ons i nt o Sout h Phi l adel phi a, butw as m etw i th r es i s t ance fr om the 20 and th (c o n tin u e d ...) 2 V A N A SK I E , C i r cui tJ udge. U nder l y i ng thi s pr otr act ed habe as corpus pr ocee di ng i s the funda m ent al ques t i on of w hetherther e i s j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i dera col l at er al att ack on a convi ct i on forw hi ch th e p e tit io n e r re c e iv e d a su sp e n d e d se n ten c e . B e c a u se th e re so lu tio n o f th is q u e stio n is c o n tro lled b yD e ss u s v . C o m m o n w e a lth o f P e n n sy lv a n ia, 4 5 2 F .2 d 5 5 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 1 ), in w hi ch w e hel d t hata habe as pet i t i oneri s not“i n cus t ody ” w hen the s ent ence forthe convi ct i on ati s s ue w as s us pended, w e w i l l aff i rm the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of the habea s corpus pet i t i on. I . BA CKGROUND A s th e p a rties a re f

a m ili a r w ith th e f

a c ts o f th is c a se w e lim it th is d isc u ss io n to thos e fa ct s es s ent i al t o ourdeci s i on. I n M ar ch 1986, fol l ow i ng a j urytr i al i n the Phi l adel phi a C our tof C om m on Pl eas , A ppel l antR odneyW el l s w as convi ct ed of thi r ddegr ee mur der , aggr avat ed as s aul t , s i m pl e as s aul t , cr i m i nal cons pi r acy , pos s es s i on of an i ns trum entof a c r i m e, and vi ol at i on of Penns y l vani a’ s C orruptO r gani zat i ons A ct ( “PC O A ”) , 18 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 911. W el l s w as s ent ence d t o a mandat oryt erm of 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 C a rp e n te r S tr e e t g a n g , w h ic h c o n tr o lle d d ru g tr a f f ic k in g in th a t a re a . A p p ell an t’ s li fe sen tenc e o n the th ir d -de g ree m u rde r co n v ict ion w as m an d atory 2 beca us e he ha d a pr i orm ur derconvi ct i on. See 42 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 9715. 3 l i fe i m pr i s onm enton t he murde rchar ge and cons ecut i ve t erm s of 5 t o 10 y ear s for 2 aggr avat ed as s aul tand cons pi r acy . O n the PC O A convi ct i on, how ever , the s ent ence w as su sp e n d e d . W e lls a p p e a led , an d th e c o n v ictio n s w e re a f f irm e d b yth e P e n n sy lv a n ia Super i orC our t . C om m onw eal th v. W el l s , 579 A . 2d 421 ( Pa. Super . C t . 1990) . T he P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt d e n ie d a llo w a n c e o f a p p e a l o n O c to b e r 3 0 , 1 9 9 0 . C o m m o n w e a lth v . W e lls , 5 9 2 A .2 d 4 4 (P a . 1 9 9 0 ). O n D e c e m b e r 3 , 1 9 9 6 , W e lls f iled a p ro se p e tit io n u n d e r th e P e n n sy lv a n ia P o stC onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct( “PC R A ”) , 42 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 9541, ets eq. C ouns el w as a p p o in ted . W e lls a ss e rte d th a t th e p ro se c u to r h a d k n o w in g lyp re se n ted f a lse tes tim o n yto th e g ra n d ju ry , res u lti n g in th e g ra n d ju ryp re se n tm e n t an d c o n v ictio n . (S A 2 2 0 .) W e lls al s o as s ert ed thathe bel i eved thatthe s eal ed gr and j urypr es entm enthad noti ncl uded a PC O A char ge, and the pr os ecut orw r ongful l ypur s ued s uch a c har ge, ther ebyenabl i ng t he in tr o d u c tio n o f

o th e rw is e in a d m is s ib le e v id e n c e a t tr ia l. T he tr i al courtdi s m i s s ed the PC R A pet i t i on. A s t o the cl ai m of pr os ecut or i al m isc o n d u c t in p u rsu in g a P C O A c h a rg e , the trial c o u rt w ro te: T he pr es entm entdi d i ncl ude evi dence that[W el l s ] w as engage d i n s er i al c o n d u c t in v o lv in g a c o rru p t o rg a n iza tio n . T h e p ro se c u to r a c ted p ro p e rlyin arr es t i ng hi m on t hatchar ge. H e w as convi ct ed of thatchar ge, butno addi t i onal s ent ence w as i m pos ed.A ppel l antal s o fi l ed an e ar l i erpet i t i on forhabea s corpus i n the East ern D i s tr i ctof 3 P enn sy l van i a, w hich the co urtdis m i ssed on S eptem ber 13, 1996 , for fai l ure t o ex hau st st at e rem edies . 4 (S A 2 8 4 . ) W el l s appea l ed t o t he Super i orC our t , as s ert i ng thatappel l at e couns el w as i neff ect i ve fornotchal l engi ng admi s s i bi l i tyof evi dence pert ai ni ng t o unr el at ed “ki l l i ngs , ” hi s convi ct i on on the PC O A char ge vi ol at ed due pr oces s beca us e the pr os ecut i on di d notpr ove eve r yel ementof the cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , and the P C R A tri al cou rti m properl yden i ed acc ess t o g rand j urytranscr i pts . F i nd i ng that the fir st tw o cl ai m s had notbeen pr es ent ed t o the PC R A court , the Super i orC our tconcl uded that theyw ere w ai ved . (SA 31 3. ) Th e st at e app el l at e cou rtfurther hel d thatW el l s’ s r equ est forgr and j urytr ans cr i pt s w as pr oper l ydeni ed. C om m onw eal th v. W el l s , 804 A . 2d 63 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 2 0 0 2 ). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt d e n ie d a llo c a tu r o n N o v e m b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 2 . C o m m o n w e a lth v . W e lls , 8 1 3 A .2 d 8 4 1 (P a . 2 0 0 2 ). In Ja n u ary2 0 0 3 , W ell s, p roc ee d ing p ro se , fil ed a h ab ea s p eti ti o n in the E astern D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia, p re se n tin g th re e c laim s: (1 ) in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

a p p e llate couns el forfai l i ng t o obj ectt o r efe r ence s of unr el at ed “ki l l i ngs ; ” ( 2) vi ol at i on of due p r o c e s s b a s e d o n th e p r o s e c u t i o n ’ s a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o p r o v e e a c h e l e me n to f th e P CO A offe ns e; and ( 3) i m pr operdeni al of hi s r eques tt o r evi ew the gr and j uryevi dence . T he 3 pet i t i on w as r efe r r ed t o M agi s tr at e J udge J ames R. M el i ns on, w ho r ecomm ended de ni al of the pet i t i on beca us e the thi r d cl ai m i m pl i cat ed onl ya s t at e l aw i s s ue, and A ppel l antI n K endr i ck, w e ce r t i fi ed t o t he Supr eme C our tof Penns y l vani a the ques t i on of 4 w hetheri t s hol di ng i n C om m onw eal th v. B es ch, 674 A . 2d 655 ( Pa. 1996) , coul d be appl i ed r etr oact i vel yt o cas es on col l at er al r evi ew . B es ch hel d thatthe PC O A di d not encompas s the pr os ecut i on of a w hol l yi l l egi t i m at e ent erpr i s e, and thati nfi l tr at i on of a legiti m ate b u sine ss b yo rga n ized crim e w as a n ec essa ryelem en t of the c ri m e. In K endr i ck, the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tans w er ed the ce r t i fi ed ques t i on i n the af firm ati v e. K en d ri ck v . D ist . A tt o rne yo f P h il ad elph ia C o u n ty , 9 1 6 A . 2 d 5 2 9 (P a. 20 0 7 ). (c o n tin u e d ...) 5 had fa i l ed t o pr oper l ypur s ue hi s fi r s ttw o cl ai m s i n s t at e courtpr ocee di ngs , w as now for ecl os ed fr om doi ng s o, and had nots at i s fi ed the ca us e and pr ej udi ce orm i s carr i age of ju stic e e x c e p tio n s to th e g e n e ra l ru le th a t a f e d e ra l co u rt w ill n o t co n sid e r iss u e s th a t a s t at e courtfi nds ar e pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed. T he D i s tr i ctC our t , adopt i ng the re c o m m e n d a tio n , d is m is s e d th e p e titio n a n d re f u s e d to is s u e a c e rt if

ic a te o f a p p e a la b ility. W e lls a p p e a le d th e d is m is s a l o f h is p e titio n to th is C o u rt . P u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c ), W e lls a p p lied f o r a c e rtific a te o f

a p p e a lab ili tyo n a ll th re e c laim s p re se n ted in hi s habea s pet i t i on. O n M ar ch 15, 2004, w e gr ant ed a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyon the lim ited iss u e o f: [W ] hetherPet i t i onerhas demonstr at ed hi s actual i nnocenc e of the Penns y l vani a C orruptO r gani zat i ons A ctoffe ns e s o as t o over come t he pr ocedur al defa ul tof the i neff ect i venes s of appe l l at e couns el and due pr oces s / corruptor gani zat i ons offe ns e cl ai m s . C om m onw eal th v. B es ch, 674 A . 2d 655, 659 ( Pa. 1996) ; C om m onw eal th v. Shaffe r , 734 A . 2d 840, 841 (P a. 19 9 9 ). T he or dergr ant i ng the l i m i t ed ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyhel d the appe al i n abey ance pendi ng a dec i s i on i n K endr i ck v. D i s tr i ctA t t orneyof C ountyof Phi l adel phi a, C . A . N o. 02- 3158. 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 W el l s ar gues thatthe C om m onw eal th fai l ed t o pr ove thathe had i nfi l tr at ed orcorrupt ed an o therw i se l egit i m at e bu si ness. 6 O n M ay14, 2009, w e i s s ued a non- pr ece dent i al percur i am opi ni on, r emandi ng this acti o n to the D istri ct C o u rtfo r fu rth er p roc ee d ing s. W ell s v . V arn er, 32 8 F . A p p ’x 128 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . Speci fi cal l y , w e det erm i ned that , i n l i ghtof K endr i ck and Besc h, t he r ecor d s uppor t ed W el l s ’ s cl ai m thathe i s actual l yi nnocentof the PC O A count , and re m a n d e d th e c a se to th e D istric t C o u rt to “ a llo w W e lls th e o p p o rtu n ityto p ro v e h is actual i nnocenc e and t o gi ve the C om m onw eal th the ‘ oppor tuni tyt o pr oduce a ny addi t i onal evi dence t o r efut e s uch a c l ai m . ’ ” I d. at132 ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. G ar th, 188 F. 3d 99, 114 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ) ( footnot e omi t t ed) . W e al s o not ed that“[i ] tappea r s t hat We l l s ’ [ s ] i n e f

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

a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l c l a i m i s u n r e l a t e d t o th e P CO A convi ct i on, and thatpr ocedur al defa ul tof thatcl ai m w oul d ther efor e notbe exc us ed, even i f W el l s es t abl i s hes actual i nnocenc e of the PC O A count . ” I d. at133 n. 7. W e di d not r es ol ve thi s ques t i on, how ever , l eavi ng i tt o the D i s tr i ctC our tt o m ake thi s det erm i nat i on i n the fi r s ti ns t ance . A pet i t i on forpanel r ehea r i ng w as fi l ed byA ppel l ees , ar gui ng thatthe dec i s i on im p ro p e rlyre lied o n a d if f e re n t th e o ryth a n th a t p re se n ted b yW e lls, co n f licte d w ith fede r al l aw , and gr os s l ym i s appl i ed the PC O A . T he pane l gr ant ed r ehea r i ng on A ugus t3, 2009, vaca t i ng the M ay14, 2009 opi ni on and j udgm ent . T he Panel di r ect ed a mem berof this C ou rt ’s bar be ap po i nted as am i cus cur i ae o n b eh alf o f W ell s, b u t l im it ed co u n sel’s7

repr esent at i on t o the foll ow i ng i ssues: ( 1) w hetherW el l s i s ‘ actual l yi nnocent ’ of hi s offe ns e under Penns y l vani a’ s C orruptO r gani zat i ons A ct , 18 Pa. C . S. § 911, b e c a u se h e c laim s h is c o n d u c t in v o lv e d o n lyw h o llyill e g iti m a te bus i nes s es . . . . and (2) w h at ef

fe ct, if an y , w o u ld the p an el’s de cisi o n h av e o n W ell s’s s ent ence . I I . DI S CU S S I ON T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253. W hen a di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s es a § 2254 pet i t i on “bas ed on a r evi ew of the s t at e courtr ecor d w i thouthol di ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng, ” w e appl ya pl enarys t andar d of r evi ew . Fahyv. H orn, 516 F. 3d 169, 1 7 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e a lso u se th e p lena rystan d ard in rev iew ing the D istri ct C o u rt ’s det erm i nat i ons r egar di ng exhaus t i on and pr ocedur al defa ul t . I d. W e mayaff i r m the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our ton gr ounds otherthan thos e r el i ed upon bythe D i s tr i ct C o u rt . S z u c h o n v . L e h m a n , 2 7 3 F .3 d 2 9 9 , 3 0 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). A n d , o f c o u rs e , a j ur i s di ct i onal ques t i on i n a habe as corpus pr ocee di ng m aybe r ai s ed byus s ua s pont e. See B en ch o ff

v . C o ll era n , 4 0 4 F . 3 d 8 1 2 , 8 1 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); see also B en d er v . W il li am sp o rt A rea Sch oo l D i st . , 47 5 U . S . 53 4, 54 1 (198 6) ( “[E ]veryfede ral app el l at e cou rthas a s peci al obl i gat i on t o ‘ s at i s fyi t s el f notonl yof i t s ow n j ur i s di ct i on, butal s o thatof the l ow ercourt s i n a ca us e underr evi ew , ’ even though the part i es ar e pr epar ed t o conce de it . ”). I n gr ant i ng r ehea r i ng, w e di r ect ed the part i es t o di s cus s tw o s epar at e and di s t i nct8

i s s ues : fi r s t , w hetherW el l s i s “ac tual l yi nnocent ” of the PC O A char ge; and s econd, w hat eff ect , i f any , ourdeci s i on w oul d have on W el l s ’ s s ent ence . T he s econd i s s ue ar i s es fr om th e f a c t th a t W e lls re c e iv e d a su sp e n d e d se n ten c e o n th e P C O A c o n v ictio n , the o n ly c o n v ic tio n im p lic a te d b yth e is s u e o n w h ic h w e g ra n te d a c e rt if ic a te o f a p p e a la b ility. A d d re s s in g th e is s u e s w e id e n tif ie d , am i cus cont ends thatthe mat t ers houl d be r emanded f o rth e Di s tr i c tCo u r tt o d e t e r mi n e wh e th e rWe l l s i s a c tu a l l yi n n o c e n to f th e P CO A ch arg e, bu t ack n o w ledg es th at th e c o n seq u en ce s o f a d ec isi o n in W ell s’s fa v o r are uncert ai n. T her e i s no need t o s pecul at e as t o the ef fec tof a de ci s i on i n W el l s ’ s favoron r e ma n d , a s i ti s c l e a rth a tAp p e l l a n ti s n o t“ i n c u s t o d y ” p u r s u a n tt o th e c h a l l e n g e d P CO A convi ct i on, a fa ctthatpr ecl udes fur thercons i der at i on of W el l s ’ s i nnocenc e vel non on the P C O A c h a rg e . C o n g ress h as li m it ed the a v ail ab il ityo f f ed era l cou rtrev iew o f state c o u rt convi ct i ons t o t hos e w ho ar e “i n cus t ody ” pur s uantt o a s t at e courtj udgm ent . See 28 U . S. C . § 2254( a) . “The fede r al habea s corpus s t atut e r equi r es thatthe appl i cantm us tbe

‘ i n cus t ody ’ w hen the appl i cat i on forhabea s corpus i s fi l ed. T hi s i s r equi r ed notonl yby the r epea t ed r efe r ence s i n t he s t atut e, butal s o bythe hi s t oryof the gr eatw r i t . ” C ar afa s v. L a V a llee , 3 9 1 U .S . 2 3 4 , 2 3 8 (1 9 6 8 ) (f o o tn o tes o m itt e d ). A s J u stic e B re n n a n o b se rv e d in Fayv. N oi a, 372 U . S. 391 ( 1963) , “[t ] he j ur i s di ct i onal pr er equi s i t e i s notthe j udgm entof a s t at e courtbutdet ent i on s i m pl i ci t er . ” Id . at 43 0 (em p h asis ad d ed ). I n De s s u s v . Co mm o n we a l th o f P e n n s y l v a n i a , 4 5 2 F . 2 d 5 5 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 7 1 ) , we9

addr es s ed the ques t i on of w hethera per s on m aym ounta fe der al habea s corpus chal l enge t o a convi ct i on forw hi ch he r ece i ved a s us pended s ent ence underci r cumst ance s re m a rk a b lysim ilar to th o se p re se n ted h e re . In D e ss u s, th e A p p e llan t w a s c o n v icte d in s t at e courton ni ne s epar at e i ndi ctm ent s emanat i ng fr om the brut al beat i ng and r ape of thr ee w om en. O ne of the w om en, M r s . A l exandr off, s us t ai ned mort al i nj ur i es , dy i ng ni net een da y s aft erthe att ack. T he s t at e courti m pos ed cus t odi al s ent ence s on fourof the i ndi ctm ent s , i ncl udi ng a l i fe s ent ence forthe murde r . “Sent ence w as s us pended on the r emai ni ng fi ve i ndi ctm ent s upon w hi ch appe l l antw as convi ct ed, i ncl udi ng thatforthe r ape of M r s . A l exandr off. ” I d. at559. D es s us col l at er al l yatt acke d al l hi s convi ct i ons w i th the exc ept i on of the murde rconvi ct i on. H e adva nced thr ee theor i es i n s uppor tof reli ef , inclu d ing a c lai m that the testi m o n yo f a p ri est co n ce rnin g M rs. A lexa n d rof f’s i dent i fi cat i on of D es s us w as i m pr oper l yadmi t t ed i n vi ol at i on of hi s Si xth A m endment confr ont at i on r i ght . H i s chal l enge t o the pr i es t ’ s t es t i m onyi m pl i cat ed onl ythe r ape convi ct i on, forw hi ch he r ece i ved a s us pended s ent ence . R ecogni zi ng thatthe s t at e courtcoul d notvaca t e the s us pended s ent ence and i m pos e a t erm of i m pr i s onm enton the r ape c onvi ct i on, i d. at560 n. 4, w e found thatt he a p p e lla n t f

a ile d to s a tis f

yth e “ c u s to d y ” p re re q u is ite to f e d e ra l h a b e a s c o rp u s re v ie w . B eca us e “c us t odyi s the pas s por tt o fede r al habea s corpus j ur i s di ct i on, ” i d. at560, and D es s us ’ s s us pended s ent ence m eantthathe w as nei theri n cus t odyas a cons equenc e of th e r a p e c o n v i c t i o n , n o rwa s th e r e th e p o s s i b i l i tyo f c u s t o d yr e s u l t i n g th e r e f r o m, weW hi l e the Supr eme C our thas “veryl i ber al l ycons trued the ‘ i n cus t ody ’ r equi r ement 5 forpurpos es of fe der al habea s , ” the C our thas “neve rext ended i tt o the s i tuat i on w her e a habea s pet i t i oners uffe r s no pr es entr es tr ai ntfr om a convi ct i on. ” M al eng v. C ook, 490 U .S . 4 8 8 , 4 9 2 (1 9 8 9 ). In M a len g , the C o u rt h e ld th a t a h a b e a s p e tit io n e r is n o t “in c u sto d y ” u n d e r a c o n v ictio n f o llo w in g e x p ira tio n o f

th e se n ten c e im p o se d f o r it sim p ly b ec au se th e a ssailed c o n v ict ion m ayb e u sed to en h an ce a se n tenc e im p o sed o n a f u ture convi ct i on. I d. at492. 10 det erm i ned thatw e coul d notaddr es s hi s confr ont at i on cl aus e cl ai m . A cknow l edgi ng t hat the “in cust od y ” j uri sdi ct i on al con cept had b een ex pan ded t o en com pass tho se w ho se l i bertyw as r es tr ai ned byt erm s of par ol e, e. g. , J ones v. C unni ngham, 371 U . S. 236 ( 1963) ; orw ho w er e i n cus t odyon one convi ct i on and s oughtt o chal l enge a convi ct i on forw hi ch a c ons ecut i ve s ent ence had y ett o comm ence , e. g. , Peyt on v. R ow e, 391 U . S. 54 (19 6 8 ); o r w h o co ll aterall ych all en g ed the c o n v ict ion w h il e sti ll in cu stod yb u t w ere s ubs equent l yr el eas ed and s ubj ect ed t o “‘ di s abi l i t i es and bur dens ’ ” emanat i ng fr om the as s ai l ed convi ct i on, e. g. , C ar afa s , 391 U . S. at237, w e found thata pet i t i onerchal l engi ng a c o n v ictio n f

o r w h ich a su sp e n d e d se n ten c e w a s im p o se d lac k e d th e re q u isite

“‘ s ubs t ant i al s t ake i n t he [a t t acke d] j udgm ent ’ ” bec aus e “[ a] rul i ng i n pet i t i oner ’ s favor c o u ld a f f o rd h im n o d ire c t re lief

f ro m h is p re se n t d e ten tio n , n o r in d ire c tlyin ter m s o f h is u ltim a te re le a s e d a te .” 4 5 2 F .2 d a t 5 6 1 . 5 D es s us i s contr ol l i ng her e. A s i n D es s us , W el l s i s chal l engi ng a convi ct i on on a countforw hi ch the s ent ence w as s us pended. A s i n D es s us , A ppel l anti s notdet ai ned pu rs uan tt o the con vict i on he is chall eng i ng , no r i s there a po ssi bil i tyof d et enti on as a cons equenc e of the PC O A convi ct i on. A s i n D es s us , “[a ] rul i ng i n pet i t i oner ’ s favor11

c o u ld a f f o rd h im n o d ire c t re lief

f ro m h is p re se n t d e ten tio n , n o r in d ire c tlyin ter m s o f h is u lti m a te r e lea se d a te.” S e e id . A c c o rd in g ly , the “ in c u sto d y ” p re re q u isite is n o t m e t in the i ns t antpet i t i on and thi s courti s “w i thoutj ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a pet i t i on forhabea s corpus w her e pet i t i onerw as gi ven a non- cus t odi al s ent ence . ” See i d. I I I . CO NC L US I ON Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , thi s C our tl acks j ur i s di ct i on overA ppel l ant ’ s chal l enge t o the val i di tyof the PC O A convi ct i on. B eca us e ourcert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyw as l i m i t ed t o the PC O A convi ct i on, w e w i l l notaddr es s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng that W el l s pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed hi s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of appe l l at e couns el cl ai m , w hi ch c o n c e rn e d th e mu r d e r , a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t , a n d c o n s p i r a c yc h a r g e s , b u tn o tth e P CO A char ge. A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of A ppel l ant ’ s habea s corpus pet i t i on w i l l be af

fi r m ed.