-1-

___________

No. 94-1783

___________

Hillum Safat Qital Abdullah, *

also known as Tommie Lee West, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Michael Groose, *

* Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: May 23, 1995

 Filed: January 31, 1996 ___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON, McMILLIAN,

FAGG, BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, MAGILL, BEAM, LOKEN, HANSEN, MORRIS

SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, EN BANC.

___________

MAGILL, Circuit Judge.

Michael Groose, Superintendent of the State of Missouri's

Jefferson City Correctional Center (the State), appeals the

district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus to Hillum Safat

Qital Abdullah. Because we believe that Abdullah is procedurally

barred from obtaining habeas relief on the Sixth Amendment claim,

we reverse.

I.

This § 2254 habeas corpus appeal stems from Abdullah's

conviction in Missouri state court for unlawful use of a weapon in
 1

Faretta v. United States, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). Faretta held

that an accused has a constitutional right to proceed pro se under

the Sixth Amendment. However, to represent himself, an accused

must "knowingly and intelligently" waive his right to an attorney

and "should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of selfrepresentation, so that the record will establish that he knows

what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open." Id. at

835 (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

 2The only reference made to Abdullah's proceeding pro se

occurred in the introduction to his Fourteenth Amendment argument

to the Missouri Court of Appeals. This reference states: "Thus,

appellant was permitted to represent himself; however, during the

course of his self-representation he was made to wear leg irons

because of one rash act he had committed the previous year. The

jury was never instructed or cautioned regarding appellant's

appearance in leg irons." Resp. Ex. F at 15.

-2-

violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.030.1(1) (1986). At his state

court trial, Abdullah was originally represented by the public

defender. Prior to trial, while in leg irons, Abdullah moved to

dismiss his attorney and proceed pro se. After a general Faretta1

inquiry, the court allowed Abdullah to proceed pro se. Immediately

thereafter, the prosecutor moved to require that Abdullah remain in

leg irons throughout the trial because he was under a ten-year

sentence on a related matter and had attempted to escape from the

same courthouse during a trial one year prior to this matter. The

state trial court ordered Abdullah to proceed to trial with leg

irons. Neither Abdullah nor his court-appointed attorney (who had

not yet withdrawn) objected to this order. After a jury trial,

Abdullah was convicted, and on February 27, 1987, he was sentenced

to five years imprisonment as a persistent offender.

Abdullah pursued a direct appeal in state court, arguing,

among other issues, that wearing leg irons during the state trial

deprived him of his Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial. In

his state appellate brief, Abdullah never argued that the trial

court's order requiring him to wear leg irons implicated his Sixth

Amendment right to counsel.2

 Instead, his arguments focused on a

Fourteenth Amendment deprivation of the right to a fair trial
 3

State v. Gilmore, 661 S.W.2d 519 (Mo. banc 1983), cert.

denied, 466 U.S. 945 (1984); State v. Boyd, 256 S.W.2d 765 (Mo.

banc 1953); State v. Kring, 64 Mo. 591 (Mo. 1877); State v. Wendel, 532 S.W.2d 838 (Mo. App. 1975); State v. Borman, 529 S.W.2d 192

(Mo. App. 1975).

 4Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976); Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975).

-3-

because the trial court did not consider less restrictive

alternatives before ordering Abdullah to proceed to trial in leg

irons. Resp. Ex. F. Abdullah cited five state cases3 and two

United States Supreme Court cases4 in support of this Fourteenth

Amendment claim. In response, the State argued that Abdullah

waived this issue by failing to contemporaneously object and that,

in any event, the trial court was within its discretion in ordering

leg irons because Abdullah had attempted to escape on a prior

occasion. Resp. Ex. G. Because Abdullah had not objected to the

order requiring leg irons at trial, the Missouri Court of Appeals

reviewed this claim for plain error resulting in manifest injustice

under Mo. R. Crim. P. 29.12(b). In undertaking this review, the

Missouri Court of Appeals noted: "In light of the overwhelming

proof of defendant's guilt, we find [no plain error resulting in

manifest injustice]," and affirmed Abdullah's conviction. State v.

West, 743 S.W.2d 592, 594 (Mo. App. 1988). In its decision, the

Missouri Court of Appeals did not cite federal law.

Abdullah then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988). The district court, adopting the

recommendations of the magistrate judge, determined that although

Abdullah failed to object to the leg irons at trial, he was not

procedurally barred from raising this claim because the Missouri

appellate court's discretionary review of the claim constituted a

review on the merits. Appellant's Addendum at 16-20. However, the

district court did not condition its grant of habeas relief on a

finding that the State violated Abdullah's constitutional rights to

due process by requiring him to proceed to trial in leg irons.
 5

Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989). Teague holds that new

rules of criminal procedure will not be applied retroactively in

habeas corpus petitions. Id. at 310.

 6This opinion was vacated on March 24, 1995, when the Court

granted the petition for rehearing en banc.

-4-

Rather, the district court determined sua sponte, rejecting the

State's Teague5 "new rule" arguments, that Abdullah was entitled to

habeas relief because his Sixth Amendment rights were violated in

that he did not knowingly and intelligently exercise his right of

self-representation since the state trial court did not include the

dangers of proceeding pro se in leg irons in its Faretta colloquy.

The State appealed, asserting that: Abdullah was procedurally

barred from asserting this claim; the district court's decision

announced a new rule in violation of Teague; and the district court

failed to apply the harmless error review standard mandated by

Brecht v. Abrahamson, 113 S. Ct. 1710 (1993). A panel majority

affirmed the district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus.

Abdullah v. Groose, 44 F.3d 692 (8th Cir. 1995).6

 This rehearing

en banc followed, and we reverse.

II.

Before a state prisoner is entitled to federal habeas corpus

relief, he must first exhaust his state remedies and present the

habeas claim to the state court. Pollard v. Armontrout, 16 F.3d

295, 297 (8th Cir. 1994). When reviewing a federal habeas corpus

petition, we can usually only consider "those claims which the

petitioner has presented to the state court in accordance with

state procedural rules." Satter v. Leapley, 977 F.2d 1259, 1261

(8th Cir. 1992). If a prisoner has not presented his habeas claims

to the state court, the claims are defaulted if a state procedural

rule precludes him from raising the issues now. We will not review

a procedurally defaulted habeas claim because "a habeas petitioner
-5-

who has failed to meet the State's procedural requirements for

presenting his federal claims has deprived the state courts of an

opportunity to address those claims in the first instance." Jones

v. Jerrison, 20 F.3d 849, 853 (8th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation

and citation omitted). "In all cases in which a state prisoner has

defaulted his federal claims in state court pursuant to an

independent and adequate state procedural rule, federal habeas

review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate

cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the

alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to

consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of

justice." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991). 

As such, Abdullah is procedurally barred from obtaining habeas

relief on his Sixth Amendment claim unless he presented the claim

to the Missouri state court, or can demonstrate cause and prejudice

for the default or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will

occur.

A. Fairly Present Claims to State Court

In order to present a habeas claim to the state court, a

prisoner must "fairly present" not only the facts, but also the

substance of his federal habeas corpus claim. Anderson v. Harless,

459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982) (per curiam). In this circuit, to satisfy the

"fairly presented" requirement, Abdullah was required to "refer to

a specific federal constitutional right, a particular

constitutional provision, a federal constitutional case, or a state

case raising a pertinent federal constitutional issue" in the

Missouri state court. Ashker v. Leapley, 5 F.3d 1178, 1179 (8th

Cir. 1993) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Furthermore,

presenting a claim to the state courts that is merely similar to

the federal habeas claim is insufficient to satisfy the fairly

presented requirement. Duncan v. Henry, 115 S. Ct. 887, 888 (1995)

(per curiam).
 7

At the district court level, Abdullah's arguments concerning

the leg irons focused on a Fourteenth Amendment due process

challenge and did not raise a Sixth Amendment right to counsel

argument. The district court apparently independently determined

that Abdullah's Sixth Amendment rights were violated. However, we

do not believe this has any impact on the procedural bar analysis.

To be entitled to habeas relief on a Sixth Amendment claim,

Abdullah was required to first present the legal substance of this

claim to the state courts so that Missouri had the first

opportunity to correct any perceived constitutional errors. That

the district court, as opposed to Abdullah, raised the Sixth

Amendment issue does not relieve Abdullah from any procedural bar

for failing to present his Sixth Amendment claim to the state

court.

-6-

On direct appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Abdullah

raised three issues: (1) erroneous admission of other crimes

evidence; (2) improper prosecutorial comment on the other crimes

evidence; and (3) a Fourteenth Amendment due process challenge to

the trial court's order requiring leg irons. As discussed earlier,

Abdullah's challenge to the leg irons in state court focused solely

on Fourteenth Amendment due process grounds. His state brief does

not contain any arguments that (1) his waiver of counsel under

Faretta was neither knowing nor intelligent because the trial court

ordered him to proceed pro se in leg irons; (2) refer to the Sixth

Amendment; (3) refer to a federal case involving Faretta; or (4)

refer to a state court case raising a Sixth Amendment issue.

Likewise, the state court opinion contains no reference to the

Sixth Amendment or any other federal law. 

Accordingly, we believe that Abdullah failed to "fairly

present" his Sixth Amendment claim under Faretta to the Missouri

state court.7 Although Abdullah presented his Fourteenth Amendment

due process claim concerning his appearance at trial in leg irons,

this does not encompass his Sixth Amendment claim that his Faretta

rights were violated even though the claims are based on the same

underlying factual basis. See Ashker, 5 F.3d at 1179-80 (alleging

Fourteenth Amendment due process violation for improper admission

of hearsay does not present confrontation clause claim). The
-7-

Ashker court noted that confrontation-clause analysis is a separate

analysis that does not necessarily overlap with a hearsay analysis.

Id. at 1180. 

It goes without saying that a due process leg irons analysis

is separate and distinct from a Faretta analysis. The Fourteenth

Amendment due process challenge requires balancing the possibility

of prejudice resulting from the leg irons against "the need to

maintain order in the courtroom and custody over incarcerated

persons." United States v. Stewart, 20 F.3d 911, 915 (8th Cir.

1994). On the other hand, determining whether a defendant properly

elected to proceed pro se under Faretta requires determining

whether the defendant's waiver of counsel was knowingly,

intelligently and voluntarily made. United States v. Yagow, 953

F.2d 427, 430 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 103 (1992).

There is no overlap between the two inquiries. As such,

Abdullah deprived the Missouri state courts of the first

opportunity to address his Sixth Amendment claim. Thus, Abdullah

failed to fairly present his Sixth Amendment claim to the Missouri

state courts. See Duncan, 115 S. Ct. at 888 (arguing to state

court that evidentiary error amounted to miscarriage of justice

under state law did not fairly present federal due process claim).

B. Available State Remedies

Because Abdullah failed to fairly present his Sixth Amendment

claim to the state court, we must determine whether he may present

this claim to the state court now. If he is precluded by a state

procedural rule, Abdullah is procedurally barred from obtaining

habeas relief on his Sixth Amendment claim unless he can

demonstrate cause and prejudice or that a miscarriage of justice

will occur if we do not consider the merits of this claim. Satter,

977 F.2d at 1262. 
 8

Rule 29.15(m) provides: 

This Rule 29.15 shall apply to all proceedings

wherein sentence is pronounced on or after January 1,

1988. If sentence is pronounced prior to January 1,

1988, and no prior motion has been filed pursuant to Rule

27.26, a motion under this Rule 29.15 may be filed on or

before June 30, 1988. Failure to file a motion on or

before June 30, 1988, shall constitute a complete waiver

of the right to proceed under this Rule 29.15. If a

sentence is pronounced prior to January 1, 1988, and a

prior motion under Rule 27.26 is pending, postconviction relief shall continue to be governed by the

provisions of Rule 27.26 in effect on the date the motion

was filed.

-8-

Abdullah has no non-futile state remedies available to him.

Abdullah has already pursued his direct appeal in West, 743 S.W.2d

592. Abdullah is time-barred from pursuing any state

postconviction relief under Mo. R. Crim. P. 29.15. Rule 29.15 is

the exclusive procedure in Missouri to allege that "the conviction

or sentence imposed violate the constitution and laws of this state

or the constitution of the United States." Mo. R. Crim. P.

29.15(a). Abdullah was sentenced on the underlying state charge on

February 27, 1987. Resp. Ex. B. Pursuant to Rule 29.15(m),

Abdullah had until June 30, 1988, to file a Rule 29.15 motion.

Abdullah's failure to file this motion constitutes a complete

waiver of the right to proceed under Rule 29.15.8 Therefore,

Abdullah has defaulted his Sixth Amendment claim by failing to

pursue it in a Rule 29.15 motion.

C. Cause

Accordingly, the next question is whether Abdullah has shown

sufficient cause to excuse his failure to raise his Sixth Amendment

claim in state court. Abdullah offers no reason why he failed to

present his Sixth Amendment claim to the state court. In his Reply

in Opposition to Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc, Abdullah simply

asserts that "Petitioner raised the full range of Constitutional
 9

Nor does Abdullah meet the fundamental miscarriage of justice

exception because he has made no showing that he is actually

innocent of the underlying state crime for which he was convicted,

unlawful use of a weapon. See Satter, 977 F.2d at 1262.

-9-

questions raised by the state court's order that the Petitioner

stand trial and defend himself while shackled in leg irons before

the jury." However, as noted above, Abdullah only presented his

Fourteenth Amendment due process challenge to the state court; he

did not present his Sixth Amendment right to counsel claim. Thus,

since Abdullah has offered no cause for his failure to raise his

Sixth Amendment claim at the state level, it is procedurally barred

and we do not consider whether Abdullah has shown prejudice.9

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the district court's grant of a

writ of habeas corpus is reversed, the order for a new trial is

vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the

petition for writ of habeas corpus as procedurally barred.

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, with whom McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge,

joins, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. 

It must first be said that the court today decides a

completely different case than was decided by the panel. 

The Court flies in the face of long-standing precedents of

this circuit to reach its result, and in doing so, severely tilts

the playing field against Abdullah. It denies Abdullah relief

because he did not tell the Missouri Court of Appeals clearly

enough what legal theory underlay his objection. Astonishingly,

the Court accepts a theory that the State of Missouri did not raise

until its motion for rehearing.
-10-

The State argued before the panel that Abdullah committed

procedural default at trial by his failure to object to the

shackling, and the Missouri Court of Appeals plain error review did

not waive the trial default. We read the State's brief as

conceding that Abdullah adequately raised the shackling issue

before the Missouri Court of Appeals:

[Abdullah] had failed to object at trial to the trial

judge's ruling of which he sought to complain in federal

habeas corpus. [The State] recognized that [Abdullah]

had sought to raise this grievance on direct appeal, but

also reported that the Missouri Court of Appeals had held

that because the grievance was not preserved for appeal,

it could be considered only under the "plain error"

standard. (Citations omitted).

For the first time, in its motion for rehearing, the State

substituted a new legal theory based on Abdullah's procedural

default in the Missouri Court of Appeals and abandoned its earlier

theory about Abdullah's procedural default at trial. 

If a party fails to raise or discuss an issue on appeal, we

deem him to have abandoned the issue. Burnette Techno-Metrics,

Inc. v. TSI Inc., 44 F.3d 641, 642 n.2 (8th Cir. 1994); Jasperson

v. Purolator Courier Corp., 765 F.2d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 1985);

Pedicord v. Swenson, 431 F.2d 92, 93 (8th Cir. 1970). It is too

late to raise new arguments on motion for rehearing. See Jamestown

Farmers Elevator, Inc. v. General Mills, Inc., 552 F.2d 1285, 1296

(8th Cir. 1977); see also Weiner v. Eastern Arkansas Planting Co.,

975 F.2d 1350, 1357 n.6 (8th Cir. 1992) (arguments must ordinarily

be raised in party's opening brief, rather than reply); Harstad v.

First American Bank, 39 F.3d 898, 905 (8th Cir. 1994) (party cannot

raise arguments for first time in Fed. Rule App. P. 28(j) letter);

9 James Wm. Moore and Bernard J. Ward, Moore's Federal Practice ¶

228.02[2] and n.7 (2d ed. 1995). 

Today the court turns its back on that long settled precedent.
-11-

There are, of course, situations in which we permit an argument to

be raised late or even raise it sua sponte. For instance,

appellate courts sometimes raise legal questions sua sponte to

avoid garbling the law. See United States Nat'l Bank of Oregon v.

Independence Ins. Agents, 113 S. Ct. 2173, 2178-79 (1993).

However, this is not a case where the Court corrects the parties'

erroneous statements of the law. 

The state did not assert before the panel that Abdullah was in

procedural default in his briefs and argument before the Missouri

Court of Appeals. Procedural default is waivable. See Vick v.

Lockhart, 952 F.2d 999, 1002 n.2 (8th Cir. 1991); Wealot v.

Armontrout, 948 F.2d 497, 499 (8th Cir. 1991); 2 James S. Liebman

and Randy Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure

§ 26.2 ¶a (2d ed. 1994). Failure to assert this theory waives the

State's rights, just as a defendant's failure to object to error at

trial can prejudice his rights. The court allows the State to

unwaive a waivable and, indeed, a waived defense.

We have implied that we would perhaps consider arguments a

party failed to raise properly if our failure to consider the

argument would result in a miscarriage of justice. See Smith v.

American Guild of Variety Artists, 368 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir.

1966) (declining to consider argument not raised where enforcing

waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice), cert. denied,

387 U.S. 931 (1967). There would certainly be no miscarriage of

justice from holding the State to the same principle it seeks to

enforce on Abdullah. 

It is not enough for the State merely to intone the mantra

"procedural default" when it did not identify before the panel the

facts that constitute the default--for, as Abdullah can attest

after today, this Court requires parties to state their legal

theories with some precision. 
-12-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.