FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 25, 2004 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1149 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-00222 -CV -4 ROBERT EDW ARD NELSON, P et iti one r- Appe llant, ve rs us DERRICK SC HOFELD, R espond ent-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the So uth er n D istri ct of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M A Y 25, 200 4) Be fo re CA RN E S, P RY O R and KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Ro be rt E dw ar d N el son, aG eo rg iastate pr iso ne r pr oc ee din g pr o se , appe al s the district court’ s dism issal of his habeas petiti on, brought p ursuant to 2 8 U. S. C.Ne lso n f ile d h is p e tit ion

a ft e r t he e ff e c tiv e date of the Antit e rr or ism and Ef fe c tiv e De a th 1 Penalty Act o f 1 9 9 6 (“AEDPA”), Pub. L . No. 104-32, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), a nd, there fore , the provisions of that act g overn this appe al. 2 § 22 54. T he iss ue pr es en te d inthi s c as e is whe the r O ’ Su lli va n v. Bo er ck el , 526

1 U . S. 838 , 119 S . Ct . 172 8, 144 L . E d. 2d 1 ( 1999 ), r equir es ape tit ion er c ha lle ngi ng a G eo rg iac onvi ct iona nd s en te nc e on d ir ec t a ppe al to pe tit ionthe G eo rg ia Su pr em e Co urt f

or c er tio rari in or de r to e xhaust his state r em ed ie s. Ne lson, serving a life sentence, wa s convicted in state court of ar m ed ro bbe ry , pos se ssi on o f a fi re ar m dur ing the c om

m iss ionof

af el ony , a nd poss es sio n of

af ir earm by ac onvi ct ed

f el on. N el son fi le d adir ec t a ppe al to the Ge orgia Court of Appeals arguing, inter alia, that (1) trial c ouns el w as ineffe ctive, an d ( 2) the state vio la te d hi s du e pr oc es s r igh ts. T he G eo rg iaCo urt of Appe al s af fi rm ed the c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc es . N el son v. S ta te , 528 S . E . 2d 8 44 ( G a. App. C t . 2 0 0 0 ) . N e l s o n d i dn o ta t t e mp tt o ap p e a l t h e d e c i s i o n t o t h e G e o r g i aS up r e me Co ur t. Ne lson th en filed a state w rit of habeas corpus, arguing, inter alia, that ap pe lla te c ouns el w as ine ff ec tiv e fo r not

se ek ing w ri t of

c er tio rari f ro m the Geo rg ia Supr em e Co ur t.Notably, the state court did not address Nelson’s c l aim 2 that counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a writ of certiorari from the Georgia Supreme Court. 3 A ft er a n e vid en tiary

he ar ing , the state c ourt de nie d th e habe as pe tit ion . 2 N el son soug ht a

c er tif ic at e of pr oba ble c au se f

ro m the G eo rg iaS upr em e Co urt, as se rt ing onl y

his c la im tha t a ppe lla te c ouns el w as ine ff ec tiv e fo r not

c ha lle ngi ng tri al co un se l’s fa il ur e to m ov e to sev er h is cas e fro m th atof h is co de fen da nt . N el son did

not se ek r ev ie w of

w he the r co unse l w as ine ff ec tiv e fo r fa ili ng t o se ek

a w ri t of c er tio rari f ro m the G eo rg iaS upr em e Co urt i n hi s di re ct appe al . T he Geo rg ia Supr em e Co ur t d en ie d a cert ifi cat e o f pr ob ab le cau se . Ne lson th en filed the present fe deral habeas petition pursu ant to 28 U.S .C. § 225 4. I n his petit ion, Ne lson raised the following claim s: (1) appellate counsel
w as ine ff ec tiv e; ( 2) tr ia l c ouns el w as ine ff ec tiv e; a nd ( 3) his due pr oc es s r igh ts were v io la te d. T he m ag istra te j udge r ec om m en de d th at

the § 22 54 p et iti on b e dis m iss ed , finding that, a lthou gh Nelson had raised his ineffective-assistance-of- trial-counsel cl ai m s and h is d

ue pr oc es s c la im

on d ir ec t a

ppe al , be ca

use he ne ve r at te m

pte d to ap pe al the G eo rg iaCo urt of Appe al s de ci sio n to the G eo rg iaS upr em e Co urt, his cl ai m s w er e pr oc ed

ur al ly de fa ult ed . T he m ag istra te j udge not ed tha t the state court had addressed the issu e of appellate c ouns el’ s perform ance in the habeas4

petition and had found that there w as no deficiency in trial counsel’ s perform ance an d th at N el son did

not suf fe r an y pr ej udi ce , a nd, the re fo re , the re w as no deficiency

in appellate counsel’s per form ance. Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ad o p t ed t h e r ep o rt an dre co m m en d at i o n o v erNe l s o n ’s objec tions . Ne lson filed hi s notice of appeal, w hich the dist rict court construed as a m otion for a certific ate of a ppealability(“ COA ”) and denied. This court granted a CO A on the f

oll ow ing iss ue onl y : “ [w ] he the r, in lig ht o f O ’ Su lli va n v. Bo er ck el , 526 U . S. 838 , 119 S . Ct . 172 8, 144 L . E d. 2d 1 ( 1999 ), ape tit ion er c ha lle ngi ng a G eo rg iac onvi ct iona nd s en te nc e on d ir ec t a ppe al is re qui re d to pe tit ionthe G eo rg iaS upr em e Co urt f or c er tio rari f or pur pose s of e xhaust ing his state rem edies.” W e re vie w adis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of aha be as pe tit ionde nov o. P ope v. Rich, 358 F. 3d 85 2, 853 n.1 (11th Cir. 2004). Be fo re br ing ing af

ed er al ha be as pe tit ion , astate pr iso ne r m ust e xhaust a ll sta te c ourt r em ed ie s th at

a re a va ila

ble f or c ha lle ngi ng h is c onvi ct ion , e ith er on direct appeal or in a state post-conv iction m otion . 28 U. S. C. § 225 4(b), (c). In O ’ Su lli va n, the U . S. S upr em e Co urt r ev ie w ed the I lli noi s di re ct

appe al s pr oc es s an d he ld tha t st at e pr iso ne rs m ust pe tit ionf or dis cr et ion ar

y r ev ie w in the state suprem e court in order to exhaust state rem edies if that discretionary reviewis part5

of the “ ordinary

appellate re view proce dure.” 526 U. S. at 847. “ ‘ [S] tate prisoners
m ust giv e the state courts one full oppo rtunity to resolve any

constitu tional iss ues by invok ing on e com

plete round of the State’ s established app ellate re view process,’ includin g reviewby the state’ s court of last resort, even if re view in that co ur t i s d is cret io na ry .” O’ Su ll iv an , 52 6 U.S. at 84 5. Prior to O ’ Sullivan, a G eorgia prisoner wa s not required to seek review of a G eo rg iaappe lla te c ourt’ s a ff irm an ce of

his c onvi ct ion . B uc k v. G re en , 743 F . 2d 1567 , 1569 (11th Cir. 1984). R ecently , how ever, this court extended O’ Sullivan to r equir e G eo rg iapr iso ne rs to se ek ac er tif ic at e of pr oba ble c au se f

ro m the state supr em e co urt up on the de nia l of astate ha be as pe tit ionin or de r to e xhaust state rem edies. P ope, 358 F.3d at 853-54. In r eaching this con clusion , the c ourt review ed our earlier

decision in Pruitt v . Jones, 348 F.3d 135 5 (11th Cir. 2003),
w hic h he ld tha t O ’ Su lli va n, w hic h ha d a ddr es se d di re ct appe al s, a lso appl ie d to the Alabam a state habeas proce edings. Pope, 358 F. 3d at 854 ; Pruitt, 348 F. 3d at 1359 ; se e al so S m ithv. Jon es , 256 F . 3d 1 135 (1 1thCi r. 200 1) ( ap ply ing O ’ Su lli va n w he re a n A la

ba m a sta te pr iso ne r fa ile d to pe tit ionf or c er tio rari on direct appeal). A lth oughP ope did

not spe ci fi ca lly

a ddr es s th e iss ue of

w he the r a G eo rg ia sta te pr iso ne r m

ust pe tit ionf or c er tio rari dur ing his dir ec t a ppe al in or de r toU nder O.C.G.A. § 9-14-52, a prisoner cannot appeal the 3 denial of habeas corpus relief “unless the Supreme Court of this state issues a certificate of probable cause f o r t he appeal.” O.C.G.A. § 9-14-52(a).

Nelson’s a

rguments that the state wa ived the exhaustion issue ar e without merit. Waiver 4 must be express and explicit, and there is no evidenc e in the re cord that the state expressly waived the exhaustion iss ue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)( 3). Furthermore , to the ex tent that Nelson asse rts that he ca n show ca

use and pr ejudice be cause his counsel was ine ffe ctive in fa iling to apply for a cer tificate of probable cause , that issue is not proper ly befor e thi s court, as it is outside the scope of the CO A, and

Ne lso n h a s n ot r e qu e ste d th a t th is c ourt e xpand the CO A. Murr ay v. Un ite d St a te s, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250- 51 (11th Cir. 1998). In addition, Nelson may not raise this claim bec ause he failed to e x haust the i s sue, as he raised the claim for the first time in his st ate ha beas pe tition, but he did no t r a ise it whe n h e mov e d f or a c e rt if ic ate of pr ob a ble c a us e fr om t

he de nia l of

his state habea s petition. S ee E dwar ds v. Ca rp en t er , 5 2 9 U.S. 446, 452-53, 120 S.Ct. 1587, 1591-92, 146 L .Ed.2d 518 (2000) ( holding that f eder al court reviewinga habe as cla im cannot consider an ineffe ctive-a ssistance-of

-counse l claim as ca

use for a proc edura l defa

ult of another c lai m if the ineffe ctive-a ssistance c laim itself was proc edur al l y b arr ed); Hill v. J ones, 81 F .3d 1015, 1029-31 (11th Cir. 1996) (holdingthat an inef fec tive-assistance -of- counsel c laim, if exhausted and not proce durally

defa ulted, may

constitute cause ). 6 ex haust state r em ed ie s, log ic dic ta te s th at the e xhaust ionr equir em en t i n G eo rg iais the sam e for dire ct appeals as for post-conv iction relief. “ The f act re m ains that G eo rg ialaw pr ovi de s th at astate pr iso ne r m ay

appe al a n a dve rs e de ci sio n to the G eo rg iaS upr em e Co urt by pe tit ion ing f

or ac er tif ic at e of pr oba ble c au se w ith in 3 0 day s of the denial of his state habeas petition . Nothing in O. C.G .A . § 9-14-52 can be c onsi de re d ‘ ex tr ao rd inary ’ a s de fi ne d inBo er ck el . ” P ope , 358 F . 3d a t 85 4. 3 A cc or din gly , appl y ing P ope , w e hol d th at N el son w as r equir ed

to pe tit ion fo r ce rt ior ar i f

ro m the state sup re m e co urt ondir ec t a ppe al to ex haust

his state re m ed ie s. A s he f

ai le d to do s o, N el son cannot sho w tha t he e xhaust ed

his state 4
re m ed ie s. A cc or din gly , w e A FF IRM the dis m iss al of his ha be as pe tit ion .