FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT DEC 05, 2007 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. 07- 11471 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 07 -000 75 -C V -T W T -1 R A M S E Y L . W R I G H T , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s R O S E W I L L I A M S , W a r d e 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 N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 5, 2007) B efo re M A R C U 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

R a m s e y L . W r i ght , aG e or gi ai nm a t e pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the s ua s pont e di s m i s s a l of

hi s habe a s pe t i t i on. S e e 28 U . S . C . § 2254. W e gr a nt e d a ce rt i fi ca t e of app ea l abi l i ty t o d ec i de the fol l ow i ng i ss ue: “ W hether the di stri ct courterre d i n sua spon t e di sm i ss i ng as procedural l y barre d app el l ant ’ s c l ai m that the s t a t e c ourti m pr ope r l y e nha nc e d hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on a n unc ouns e l e d pr i or c o n v ic tio n .” W r ig h t a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d w h e n it d is m is s e d h is habeas pet i t i on as procedural l y barre d b ec ause a s ent ence base d o n an u ncou nsel ed p r io rc o n v ic tio n is v o id e v e n if n o o b je c tio n w a s m a d e a t s e n te n c in g . W e a f f irm . W e r e vi e w de novo the di s m i s s a l of ahabe a s pe t i t i on. S e e S i m s v. S in g le ta ry , 1 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 9 7 , 1 3 0 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . D is tr ic t c o u rts a r e r e q u ir e d to d is m is s ah ab e a s p e titio n s u m m a r ily“[ i]f it pl a i nl y appe a r s f

r om the pe t i t i on a nd a nya tt a c he d e xhi bi t s tha tthe pe t i t i one ri s not e nt i t l e d t o r e l i e f

. ” 28 U . S . C . § 2254, R ul e 4. W he n as t a t e pr i s one rf a i l s t o pr e s e nt h is c la im in s ta te c o u rt, th e f e d e r a l h ab e a s c o u rt c a n n o t h e a rth e m e r its o f th e c la im abs e ntas how i ng of

c aus e f orthe de f

aul ta nd a c tua l pr e

j udi c e orpr oof

tha tthe f a ilu r e to c o n s id e rth e c la im w o u ld c au s e af u n d a m e n ta l m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . B ai l eyv. N agl e, 17 2 F . 3d 12 99 , 13 02 –0 3, 13 06 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). “ A ‘ fund am ent al m i sc arri age of j ust i ce ’ occurs i n an extra ordi naryca se , w here a c on st i tut i on al3

vi ol at i on has r es ul t ed i n the conv i ct i on of som eone w ho i s a ctual l y i nn ocent . ” H e n d e r s o n v . C a m p b e ll, 3 5 3 F .3 d 8 8 0 , 8 9 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . W r ig h t’s a r g u m e n t th a t av o id s e n te n c e is n o t s u b je c t to p r o c e d u r a l d e f

au lt is w i thoutm e r i t . W r i ghtc i t e s ourde c i s i on i n G onz a l e z v. A bbott , 967 F . 2d 1499, 15 04 (11th C i r. 19 92 ), for the prop osi t i on thata voi d con vi ct i on cann otbe a l egal c aus e of i m pr i s onm e nt , notw i ths t a ndi ng a nypr oc e dur a l de f aul t , butW r i ghtha s not ar gu ed thatei ther hi s c on vi ct i on i s voi d o r he i s a ctual l y i nn ocent . W ri gh tar gu es tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s voi d, buta n i l l e ga l s e nt e nc e i s notar e c ogni z e d e xc e pt i on t o a p r o c e d u r a l d e f

au lt. T h e d i sm i ssal o f W ri g h t ’ s p et i t i o n fo r a w ri to f h ab eas co rp u s i s A F F I R M E D .