## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2825 E L L I OTD . R AY, P et it ioner-App el lant, v. A NA B OAT WR I GHT, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 1:0 7-cv-00 19 0-WCG

—Wi ll iam C. G ri esb ach,Judg e.
A RGUED N OVE MBE R 5, 2009

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 21, 2010

Befo re B AUER, M ANI ON an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, C ircu i tJudg e . El l i o t Ra ya ppea l s f r o m the dist ri ct c ou rt ’s deni alo fhi s peti ti on f ora w ri t o fhabea s cor pu s under 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254. B ec au se i t was pl ai n er ro r f orthe sta te cour t t o adm i t the co -ac tor s’ st ate m ents th ro u gh t h e p olic e d et ec tiv e’s te st im on y a t t ria l, vi o l at i ngRa y ’ s r i g hto f conf r o nt at i o n, we r ev er se a nd r e man d.2 N o. 08

- 2825 I . B AC KGR OUND R ay w as one of seve ra l gunm en charg ed in W i sco nsi n s ta te cour t f ora re tal i ato rysho oting i n w hi ch Ri ta M ar tine z, a n e l ev en - year-ol d g i r l, was k i l l ed, a nd tw o peopl e were inj ured o n 29th St re et i n M i l w aukee , W isconsi n. Ray cl ai m s that o n the ni ght o fthe shoo ti ng, he ch a ng e d h i s mi nd ab o uta c c o mpa ny i ngh i s fr i e nd s to 29th St re et, to l d his fri ends that h e w as not going with them, a nd r e t urne d t o h i s fr i e nd ’ s h o us e o n 3 3 r d S t r eet
. Ray m ai ntai ns thathe l ear ned that M artin ez had been shotnear29 th S tr eetfro m a tel evi si on news re port
. A t t ri al, the St ate cal l ed Detect i ve DanielPhi l l i ps to te st ify a b o u t t h e h om icid e in ve st iga tio n an d h is i nter vi ew w i th Ray at the pol i ce sta ti on. The d et ec tive tes ti fi ed ab ou t Ray ’ s s i gned st ate m ent that was wri tte n toward the end ofRay ’s i nter vi ew , wh er e Rayta l ked ab o utthe ni g ht of sh o o ting s ati ss ue , a s wel l a s th e eve nts that t ra nspir ed the ni ght b ef or e the sho oti n gs. R ay ’s A p p . at 6 42 . In te st ifyin g, th e d et ec tiv e p rim ar ily read from Ray ’s statem en t, includ ing t h e p o rtion w he re he told Ray that tw o ofhi s co - acto rs ’ had m ade st ate
m ent s to i m pl i ca te Ra y i n the s ho o ting s. W e no te tha t th e d etec tive testifyi ng to th e state m en ts m ad e by ot h e rs ( o th ertha n the d efen dan t) i s i na dm i ss ibl e he ar sa y . The detect i ve tes ti fi ed as f ol l ows: R ay state s tha t he too th en began w a lking from 33rd St re et to 29th St re et to go shoo t a l ong w i th the r esto f th em , b utRa y s ta te s when he g o t to Nor thAve nue he tho ug ht“ fucki t” a nd tur ne d a r ou nd a nd wen t backto [ hi s fri end’s] house

.N o. 08

- 2825 3 Ray was then confro nted w i th num er ous s tat em en ts m ade by co - acto rs that they w er e pr ese nt sho oting o n 29th St re et and so w as Ray. Ray then st ate d “ thos e stupi d ni gge rs sho uldn’ t be ta lkin g a n d th ey ca n ’t t alk for m e.” Whe n c onf

r ont e d w i t h s t at e m e nts b y [M i r i am M yl e s ]t hat R ay w as s hoo ti ng a nine- m il li m et eron 2 9th Stre et[and ] in a s t at e m e ntb y S yl ve s t e rTowns e nd
. . . t hatRay h ad a
. 45- ca l i b e rpis t ol [ , ] Ray then sai d “ tel l m e w hi ch gun ki l l ed the g i rland I ’ l l te l l yo u eve ry thi ng. ” R ay ’s A p p . at 6 53 . (E m p h as is a d d ed .) Ra y ’ s a tt o r ne y di d notobj ec t t o the de te ct i ve ’ s te st i m o ny re gar ding the above

- re fer enced st atem ents. N ei ther M iria m M yle s n or Sylv es te r T ow n se n d te st ified attria l. A j u ry r et urned gui l ty ver dict s f oro ne co unt offi rs td e g r e e r e c k l e s s h o mi c i d e , p a r t y t o a c r i me , a n d t wo counts offi rs t-d egr ee re ckl ess l y e nd anger i ng sa fety
. Ray’ s Ap p. at38
. H e w as al so convi cted o fbeing a fel on in p os se ss ion of a fire ar m . Id. On d i re ct a pp eal, Ray ra i sed fiv e i ssues , i ncl ud i ng a cl ai m thathis confro ntati on cl ause ri ghts w er e v i ol ate d when th e det ec ti ve was a l l o wed t o testi fy r eg ar di ng sta tem ents m ade by Ray’ s co - acto rs , wh en tho se coacto rs w ere no t witnesse s a t t ri al

. The st ate appel l ate cour t i gnor ed thi s i ssue and sol el y focuse d on wh ether ther e was a hear sayviolat ion, despi te the det ecti ve u sin g t h e p h ra se , “R ay w as th en co n fro n te d ” in h is t es tim ony. The s tat e a pp el l ate co urt concl ud ed that the det ecti ve’ s r efer ences to the c o- acto rs ’ s s tatem ents w er e no t4 N o. 08

- 2825 he ar sa y b ec au se the y wer e no t o ffer ed to pr o ve “ th e tr uth o fthe matt er ” co nt aine d i n the s ta te m en ts but ra ther“t o show Ray’ s r eact i on to hi s co - acto rs ’ st ate m ents pl aci ng hi m a t th e sc en e, s ho o tinga g un

— a r eact i on im p li catin g him in the reven ge-seeking con sp iracy. ” Ra y’s A p p . at 4 0 -42. Th e state su p rem e cou rt de nied Ray ’s p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w. R ay th en sough t po st-con viction reli ef in sta te cou rt un d er W is. Stat. § 974.06. H e w as d en ied reli ef. Ray ’s A pp . at95
. Ray fi l ed two separ ate pro se peti ti ons f orw ri t o fhabea s corp us i n th e federa l d istri ct cou rt. Th e d istri ct cou rt denied both o fRa y ’ s pet i ti o ns pur su an t to Rul e 4 o fthe Rul es Go ve r ni ngSecti o n 2 25 4 Cas es , fi ndi ngtha t he setf or th no cogni zable co nsti tuti onalo r federa l l aw cl ai m s. Ray’ s Ap p. at51

- 58, 94

- 100. Therea fter, the di str i ct cour t g ra nted Ray’ s r equest f ora cer ti fi cate o fappeal abi l i ty to a ddr es s whethe r the t r i alc o ur t’ s adm i ss i o n o fthe st at em en ts by n on -te st ifyin g c o-a c to rs th ro u gh th e t es tim ony of the det ecti ve ra n af oulo fthe confro ntati on cl ause.

I I . DI S C US S I ON U nd erthe A nti ter ro ri sm and Effecti ve Death Penal ty A ct o f19 96 ( A ED PA ) , an a pp l i cati on f ora w ri t o f habeas co rpus m ay not b e granted unl ess adj ud i cati on o f the c l ai m i n sta te cour t “ re sul ted i n a d ec isio n that was con trar y t o , o r i nv o l ve d a n un r ea so nabl e appl i ca ti o n o f, cl ea r l y e st ab l i sh ed F ede r all aw, a s det er m i ne d by the S up r e me Co ur to fthe Uni t e d S t a t e s . ” 2 8 U. S
. C.N o. 08

- 2825 5 § 2 25 4(d )(1) . “[S]t at e- c o u rtj u d gm en ts m u st be u p h eld un less, after the closest ex am ination of the sta te-c o u rt j ud gm ent, a federa l co u rt is fi rm l y c onvi nced that a federa l co nsti tuti onalr i ght ha s b een v i ol ate d.” Wi l l i a ms v. Tayl or, 529 U
. S. 362, 388 (2000 ). The Gover nm ent s eek s t o f ra m e the i ssue i n this case as on e i n v o l vin g t h e h ea rs ay ru le; it is n ot . W h ile th er e is a hea rs ay vi ol ati on a s no ted abo ve, the i ssue i nvol ves th e v i o l a t i o n o fth e S i x th Ame n d me n to fth e C o n s ti tu
tio n w h ich sa ys th at : “T h e a c c u se d sh all enj oy th e rig h t .
. . to be co n fro n te d w ith th e w itn es se s a ga in st h im
. . . .” The Suprem e Cour t has hel d that the guarantee, wh i ch i s e xt e nd e d a g a i ns tthe s t a t e s b y the Fo ur t e e nth Am e nd

m en t, in c lu d es th e rig h t t o c ro ss -ex am in e w itn es se s. See Poin t e rv. Te xas , 38 0 U.S
. 40 0, 40 4 ( 1965). A n d this fund am entalco nsti tuti onalr i ght i s qui te proper ly an al m ost to ta l b ano n the i nt r o duct i o n of ac cus at i o ns a g ains t th e ac cus ed bype r so ns no t pr es en t f o r c r o ss - ex ami na ti o n.
A. W he t he rT he r e Was A C o nf r o nt a t i o n C l a us e I s s ue T he fi r sti ss ue we m us t addr es s i s whethe r the de t e c t i v e ’ s t e s t i mon y c o nc e rni ngthe s t a t e men t s ma de by th e co - ac to r s vi o l at ed Ra y ’ s r i g hto fc o nfr o nt at i o n. The gov er n m ent c onte nd s that the co

- acto rs ’ st ate m ents w er e use d “not as substa nti ve evi dence ofRay’ s guil t, bu t instea d to ‘ gi ve the c onte xt o f’ Ray’ s r eact i on t o th o se s ta te m en ts
. ” Appe ll ee ’ s Br i efa t 22
. Be ca us e th e st atement s wer e no t he ar sa y, the g o ve r nm en t m aint ains that they do not run af oulo fthe confro ntati on cl au se . Id. at2 3. The gover nm en t l i k en s th i s ca se t o b o th Tenn essee6 N o. 08

- 2825 v. Street, 4 7 1 U. S
. 4 0 9 , 4 1 7( 1 9 8 5 ) a nd Le ev. M cCaught ry, 89 2 F.3d 13 18 , 1 32 5 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 0)
. I n Street, the Suprem e Cour t hel d that there was no co nfro ntati on claus e viol ation w he n th e State int rod uc ed the co-ac tor’s confess i on, bec ause i t w as i ntro du ced f orthe non- hear say p u rp os e o f reb u tt i n g t h e d efe n d an t’s te st im on y t h at h is ow n con fession w as a coerce d “cop y” of the co-actor’s st at ement
. 4 71 U. S
. a t 41 7. I n Lee , w e hel d that there was n o c on fro n ta tio n cla u se vio lat ion in a d m itt in g in to ev id en ce a ta p e r ecord ing tha t includ ed the sta te’s at to rn ey ’s n ar ra tio n of t h e a c c om p lice ’s a c c u sa tio n in th e re c or d ed int e rv iew w ith th e d efe n d an t, be c au se it w as u sed to place int o cont ex t for th e j ury th e m etam orphosi s o fthe defe nd ant’ s a ccounts ofe ve n ts, i
. e. , that t h e d e fe n d a n tc h a n g e d h i s s t o r y a ft e r h e a r i n gth e a c c o mpli ce’ s a ccusati on. 89 2 F
. 3d at 1325
. The g o ve r nm en t m aint ains tha t th e st at e co ur t’ s co ncl usi on that th e co - acto rs ’ st ate m ents w er e intro du ced to gi ve c o nt e xtt o R a y ’ s r e a c t i o n t o the m ( i
. e . , a g ui l t y r eactio n ), n o t to sh ow th eir u n d er lyin g t ru th , i s a rea so n ab le c o n c l u s i o n a n d a r e a s o n a bl e a p p l i c a t i o n o ffe d e r a l l a w. Id. at 24. W e di sag re e. T he confr ontat i on cl ause has be en i nvoke d to p r e v e n t, e v e n i n a j o i n t t r i a l, th e a d mi s s i o n o f a c o nfess i on bya co-d efendant thati m pli cate s the o ther accused, eve n i f the tr i al j ud ge provi des a l i m i ti ng i nstr uctio n . See B ruto n v. U nited Sta tes, 391 U
. S. 123, 127-28 (1968 ). W h ile th e m et h od of p re se n ta tio n of th e a c c u sa tio n s in th i s ca se s ho ws l i ve l y i m ag i na ti o n onthe pa r t o fthe pros ecu ti on, i t nev er thel ess r uns af oulo fthe U ni tedN o. 08

- 2825 7 S ta te s Con st i tu ti o n. Her e, the e vi den ce pr es en te d b y the pros ecuti on del i ver ed to the j ury sta tem ents by nam ed coacto rs , notava ilable f orcr oss - exam i nati on, acc usi ng Ray o fthe v e r y c r i mes w i th whi c h he s t o o d c ha r g e d. H owever cl eve rl y pres en ted, the evi dence w as a cl ear vi o lat i o n o fRa y ’ s co ns ti tu ti o na l r i g hto fc o nfr o nt at i o n. W hi l e the go ver nm ent a sse rt s that “ a num bero fwitnes ses pl ac ed Ra y a m o ngthe g r o up o fpe o pl e i nv o lv ed i n the shoo ti ng” ( A pp el l ee’ s Bri ef at 5- 6) , none ofthes e witnesse s co ul d pl ac e Ra y a t the s ce ne o fthe s ho o ting s, wi tha we a po n i n hi s h a nd

. T o a c c e ptthe g o v e r nme nt ’ s p o s i t i on th atthe s ta te m en ts wer e o ffer ed o nl y t o c r ea te the set ti ng f orRay’ s r esponse , and the re f or e a dm i ssibl e, woul d s etthe s ta g e to e l i m i na te , i n mos t ca se s, the c o nfro n ta tio n righ t “ enj oy ed by th e a c c u se d .” Streeti s fa c tu al l y di sti ngui shabl e be cause ther e, the coac to r s’ c o nfes si o n was i nt r o duce d i n re but ta l to r efut e th e defe nd ant’ s cl ai m o fco er ci on, wh er e here, t h e dete cti ve testifi ed to the co-act ors’ statem en ts d uring the Stat e’s ca se - i n- ch i ef

. The c o ur t i n S t r e et a ls o i ns tru cted the j ury that the co- acto r’ s stat em ent was t o “be consi dered byyo u f orr ebutabl e [ si c] purposes on ly, and yo u ar e no t t o c onsi der the tr uthful ness ofthe sta tem ent in any w ay w h at so ev er .” Id. at5 12
. The c o ur t i n thi s case issu ed no l i m i tingi ns tr uct i o n. Lee i s a lso di sti ngui shabl e be cause w e do not fi nd that Ray chang ed hi s v er si on o fev ents afterhear i ng the acc usati o ns o fthe c o-actor s. F ur th er, the t r i alc o ur t i n Lee al so provi ded a l i m i ti ng i nstr ucti on wh er ea s none w as provi ded her e.8 N o. 08

- 2825 W e fi nd thatthe detect i ve tes tifyi ng to the co- acto rs ’ sta tem ents prove d f ar m or e than any re acti on that Ray had du ring hi s in te rv iew
. Ray did nothave the opportunity to cro ss- exam i ne the se co- acto rs attr i al

. A ccor dingl y, th es e st at ement s vi o l at ed Ra y ’ s r i g hto fc o nfr o nt at i o n.
B. W h eth er Th ese Statem en ts W ere A d m issib le U n d er Roberts And L il ly Because Ray ’ s co nvi ctio n w as fi nal i zed befor e C raw fo rd v. Was hi ngt on , 5 4 1 U
. S. 36 (2004), w as d ecid ed , Ray ’s co nfr o nt at i o n c l au se c l ai m s ho ul d b e an al y ze d “ ac co r di ng to Robe rts and Lilly, th e c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d S u p r e me C ou rtp re c ed en t a t t h e t im e o f th e s ta te co u rtd ec isio n s.” Bintz v. Be rtrand, 40 3 F
. 3d 859, 86 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. U nd er th es e ca se s, the ve r ac i tyo fs ta te m en ts fr o m no n- te st i fy i ng w i tness es i s s uffi ci entl y d ependable to al l ow the unte ste d adm i ssi on o fsuch statem ents aga i nst a n accuse d at t ri al w hen ( 1) “the ev i dence f al l s w ith in a fi rm l y r oo ted hear sayexcep tion” or( 2) i t co ntai ns “par ti cul ar i zed guar antee s o ftr ustw or thi ness” su c h that advers ar i al te st i ngwoul d b e ex pec te d t o a dd l i tt l e, i fa ny th i ng, t o the sta tem ents’ r el i abi l i ty. O hio v. R ober ts , 448 U
. S. 56 , 65

- 66 (19 80 ); Lilly v. Virginia , 527 U
. S. 116, 124-25 (1999 ). The go ver nm ent doe s no t a rgue, nordo we fin d, that th es e st at ement s f al l wi th i n a he ar sa y e xc ept i o n. A dd i ti onal l y, the gov er nm ent does not arg ue thatthes e state m en ts con tain p articu lari zed gu aran tees of trustw orth i ne ss . As thi s Cou r t i nt er pr et s th e r ea so nin g o fthe p l ur al i tyi n Lilly, thes e guarant ees o ftr ustw or thi nessN o. 08

- 2825 9 “mustb e i nhe r en t i n the c i r cum st an ce s o fthe t es ti m o ny its elf; th e fa c t t h at ot h er e v i d en c e c or ro b or at es th e t es tim ony i n questi on does n ot su ffi ce. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cast e l an , 21 9 F
. 3d 690, 69 5 ( 7th Cir. 2 000)
. There i s a pr es um pti o n o funr el i ab i l i tytha t at ta ch es t o a c o-de fen dant’s co nfe ssi on, se e Leev. Ill inois , 4 76 U
. S. 5 30, 543 ( 1986 ), “[ i ] t i s hi ghl y unlike ly that the pr esum pti ve unrel i abi l i ty that at taches to acc om pli ces’ co nfe ssi ons that shi ft o r spr ea d b l ame c anb e ef fective l y r eb ut te d when

. . . the g o ve r nm en t i s i nv o l ve d i n th e st at ement s’ pr o duct i o n, an d whenthe s ta te m en ts de sc r ibe pa ste ve nt s an d h av e n otbe en su b je c t e d to ad ve rs ar ial te st in g.” Lil ly, 52 7 U
. S. at13 7. H er e, the c o - ac to r ’ s st at ement s ne i th erf al l “ wi th i n a firm ly ro ot ed h ea rs ay ex c ep tio n ” , n o r d o t h ey co n ta in “part i cul ar i zed guar antee s o ftr ustw or thi ness. ” Ther ef or e, these st ate m ents w er e inadm i ssibl e. SeeO hio v. R ober ts , 44 8 U .S. at 6 5-6 6; Lilly, 52 7 U.S
. at12 4- 25.

C. W hetherI tW as P lain Err orTo Ad m i tThese Sta t em en ts Ra y c o nc ede s th atno o bj ec ti o n was m ad e w he n the detect i ve tes ti fi ed to the co-actor s’ st ate m ents and that, a s a c on se q u en c e, ou r re vie w is lim ite d to p lain err or . See Fed

. R. Cri m . P. 52 ( b) ; U nited Sta tes v. Ho dg es , 31 5 F
. 3d 7 9 4 , 8 00 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 )
. Und e r the p l a i n e r r o r s t a nd a r d, “w e m u st d ec id e (1 ) w h et h er th e r e w as an err or atall, ( 2) whethe r i t was pl ain, ( 3) whethe r i t affec te d the de fen dant’s s ub s t a nt i a l r i g ht s , a nd ( 4 ) wh e the r ( i fthe fi r st10 N o. 08

- 2825 th r ee f ac to r s ar e pr es en t) i t se r i o us l y a ffec te d the f ai rnes s, i ntegr i ty, o r publi c r eputati on o fthe j ud i ci al p ro c ee d in gs .” U ni t e d S t at e s v . Hawk, 43 4 F
. 3d 959, 96 2 (7t h C ir. 20 06 ). Th e fo c u s o f th e p r eju d i c e in q u iry in deter m i ni ng wh etherth e c onfro ntati on r i ght ha s be en vi o l at ed m us t be o n the p ar ti cul arwi tn es s, no t o n the ou tc om e o f th e e n tir e t r i al. D el aw are v. Va n Arsdall, 475 U
. S. 67 3, 68 0 ( 1986 )
. A new tri ali s warr anted i fthe er ro r had a subst anti aland i nj uri ous e ffect ori nfl uence o n d et er m in in g t h e jur y v er d ict
. B intz , 40 3 F
. 3d at 869. H er e, the e r r o r i n a dm i tt i ngs ta te m ent s byno ntes ti fyi ng co - acto rs was pla i n. Ray’ s s ubstanti alr i gh ts wer e affected b ec au se he was no t ab l e to c r o ss - ex ami ne th e o nl y wi tn es se s who di r ec tly i m pl i ca te d hi m t o b eing a tthe s c e ne o fthe sho oti ng wi th a we a po n i n hi s h a nd , an d who di r ec tly refu te d Ra y ’ s cl ai m tha t he ha d wi th

draw n fro m the conspi ra cy at i ssue. W e fi nd thi s co nfr ontati o n c l au se v i o l at i o n s er i o us l ya ffec te d the f ai rnes s o fthe j ud ici al procee d in gs an d reverse th e d istri ct cou rt’s o pi ni o n.

D . W h eth er R ay’s P etit ion W as T im ely The gov er nm ent al ter nati vel y ar gues that Ray’ s h abeas peti ti on shoul d b e bar re d b ecause i t w as unti m el y. U nd er the r ul e s g o v e r ningAEDP A, a p e t i t i o ne r h a s o ne ye ar i n w hi ch to fi l e a peti ti on f or w ri t of habeas cor pu s, to be gin r unning“ o n the da te o fwhi chthe j udg m en t becam e fi nal by the concl usi on o fdi re ct r evi ew o r expir at i o n o f the t i me f o r s e e k i ng s uc h r e v i e w. ” 2 8 U.S
. C. § 2 244( d)(1)(A ). T h e on e-y ea r p er iod i s t ol l edN o. 08

- 2825 11 d u rin g a p ro p er ly filed p o s t -c on vic tio n p et itio n in st a te co u rt
. See 28 U
. S. C. § 2 244( d)( 2)
. A ccor dingl y, Ray ha d unt i l S ept embe r 9 , 2 004 in w hi cht o fi l e hi s pet i ti o n. Th e g ov e r nme ntma i nt a i ns tha tR a y f a i l e d t o p r o v i de docum entat i on that he had o ri gi nal l y fi l ed hi s sta te p ost
convi cti on m oti on i n a t i m el y m anner, and dis c re dit s Ra y ’ s as se r ti o n tha t th e Okl ah o m a pr i so n i n whi chhe was ho us ed m i spl ac ed th e ti m ely - fi l ed m o ti o n. There i s no ev i dence i n the re c or d t o supp or t the go ver nm ent’ s a sse rt ion s. H owever, thi s i s l ar gel y due t o the f act that the di str i ct c ourtdi sm i ssed R ay’ s peti ti on o n the m er i ts bef or e g i vi ng the go ver nm en t an opportunity to a ns werthe pe ti ti o n a nd develop the r ec o r d. The record curren tly r efl ects th at R ay served a cop y of his p ro se post- convi cti on p et i ti on t o pri son offi ci al s o n A pri l 27, 2004
. Ray’ s Ap p. a t 32, 36
. Cor re spondence betw een Ray a nd pri son offi ci als al ter nati vel y ind i cate thatRay fi l ed hi s m oti on o n A pri l 29, 2004. R ay’ s Ap p. at32 , 34

- 35, 37. Despi te the di sparity in the date, thes e docum ents provi de supp or t forRay’ s a sse rt i on that he fi l ed hi s pos tco nv i ct i o n pe ti ti o n i n a t i m ely manne r . Howev er, the gov er nm ent has notye t had a chance t o chal l enge w h e t h e r the d ocu m en ts R ay p laced i nt o the record are authenti c; wh etherthe state c ou rtpeti ti on was ev er r e c e i v e d b y p r i s o n o ffi c i a l s ; wh e the r the p a pe r s R ay fi l ed w er e s uffi ci ent under sta te l aw t o peti ti on f orpost
conv i c t i o n r e l i e f; o r wh e the r the i nd i v i du a l t o wh om Ray al l ege dly gave hi s peti ti on w as a prop er pri son au th o r i ty
. Acco r di ng l y, we r emand th i s ca se t o the di s t r i c tc o ur ts o tha tthe g o v e r nme ntma y h a v e a n o pportunity t o devel op the re cor d on this iss ue. I f, after12 N o. 08

- 2825 th e record i s full y d evelop ed , R ay’s pe titi on is de term in ed to be tim ely, this C ou rt directs the d istri ct cou rt to gr ant the p et itio n f orwri t o fhabea s co rpus unl ess the S tat e cho ose s t o re tr y Raywithi n 120 days.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe re aso ns st ate d above , we R EV ERSE the dist ri ct c o ur t a nd R EM AND the case f orfurtherpro ceedi ngs no t i nc o ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

1- 21- 10