H onor abl e J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef J udge of the U ni t ed St at es C our tof *. I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t 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. 08- 3165

___________ R O B E R T L IN C O L N , A ppel l ant v. JO H N A . P A L A K O V IC H , et. a l.; T H E D IS T R IC T A T T O R N E Y O F T H E C O U N T Y O F P H IL A D E L P H IA ; T H E 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

___________ O n 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 . N o. 2- 07- cv- 01373) D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le N o rm a L . S h ap ir o

___________ A R G U E D A PR I L 13, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges , and R E ST A N I , J udge * ( Fi l ed J une 21, 2010)

___________ J . N i chol as R anj an, E s q. ( A r gued) K & L G at es 210 Si xth A venue Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222

C ouns el forA ppel l antW e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to h e a r t h is a p p e a l u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 . 1. H ars hbar gerv. R egan , 5 9 9 F .3 d 2 9 0 , 2 9 1 n .1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ). 2 J ohn W . G ol ds bor ough, E s q. ( A r gued) T h ree S o u th P en n S q u are Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107

C ouns el forA ppel l ees

___________

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge.

Si nce thi s opi ni on i s w hol l yw i thoutpr ece dent i al val ue, w e w r i t e s ol el yfort he b e n e f it o f th e p a rties , w h o a re f

a m ili a r w ith th e f

a c tu a l an d p ro c e d u ra l h isto ryo f th is m a tter. W e w ill v a c a te th e o rd e r a n d re m a n d th e c a u se to th e D istric t C o u rt. 1 I. Pol i ce a rr es t ed R obertL i ncol n i n 2003 forthe r obberyand brut al beat i ng of a w om an i n herhom e. O n O ct ober27, 2003, pur s uantt o a pl ea a gr eement , L i ncol n pl eade d gui l tyt o char ges of att empt ed murde r , r obbery , and aggr avat ed as s aul t . H e r ece i ved a s e n te n c e o f

s ix te e n to f

o rt yy e a rs o f

im p ri s o n m e n t a n d tw e n ty y e a rs o f p ro b a tio n . L i ncol n’ s couns el t i m el yfi l ed a not i ce of appea l t o the Penns y l vani a Super i or C our ton N ovember26, 2003. O n J anuary5, 2004, the Super i orC our ti s s ued an or der“W heneve ra not i ce of appea l t o the Super i orC our ti s fi l ed, the 2. Pr othonot arys hal l s end a doc ket i ng s t at ementform w hi ch s hal l be compl et ed and r eturned w i thi n t en ( 10) day s i n or derthatthe C our ts hal l be abl e t o m or e ef fi ci ent l yand e x p e d iti o u slya d m in iste r th e sc h e d u lin g o f a rg u m e n t an d su b m iss io n o f c a se s o n a p p e a l. Fa i l ur e t o f

i l e a do c ke t i ng s t a t e mentmayr e s ul ti n d i s mi s s a l of the a pp e a l . ” Pa . R. A . P. 3 5 1 7 . W h il e the d isco n ti n u an ce is r ec o rde d o n the S u p erior C o u rt ’s do ck et, there 3. i s no r efe r ence t o the r ece i ptof a pr aec i pe t o di s cont i nue. T he r ecor d cont ai ns a copyof a pr aec i pe thatw as s i gned byL i ncol n’ s couns el and pos t ed fors ervi ce bym ai l t o the D istri ct A tt o rne yo n Jan u ary2 , 2 0 0 4 . W e p resu m e, th ere fo re, th at th e S u p erior C o u rt di s cont i nued the mat t erupon the r eques tof Li ncol n’ s couns el . M or eover , the r ecor d copy of the or derdi s cont i nui ng the mat t erl eads us t o concl ude thati tw as s i gned bythe Pr othonot aryon J anuary6, 2004, even though i tw as docket ed on J anuary5, 2004.

T he Pos tC onvi ct i on R el i ef A cti s al s o comm onl yr efe r ence d as “PC R A . ” 4. T he l ett erw as fi l ed i n acc or d w i th C om m onw eal th v. F i nl ey , 479 A . 2d 5. 5 6 8 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 1 9 8 4 ). 3 n o tin g L in c o ln ’s f

a ilu re to f

ile a d o c k e tin g sta tem e n t an d re q u irin g h im to d o so w ith in ten d ay s. O n that sam e d ay , h o w ev er, th e S u p erior C o u rtd isco n ti n u ed the m att er,

2 p re su m a b lyu p o n th e re q u e st o f L in c o ln ’s c o u n se l. 3 In Feb ruary20 04 , L i nco l n fil ed a p ro se pet i t i on for r el i ef un der the P ost C onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct , 42 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. §§ 9541- 9546, cl ai m i ng i neff ect i venes s of tr i al couns el . C our t - appoi nt ed couns el s ubs equent l yfi l ed a l ett ers eeki ng t o w i thdr aw

4 r epr es ent at i on, aft err evi ew i ng the ent i r e r ecor d and conc l udi ng thatther e w er e notany su b sta n tiv e o r p ro c e d u ra l issu e s o f a rg u a b le m e rit. 5 Pur s uantt o the Penns y l vani a R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e, the C our tof C o m m o n P leas o f P h il ad elph ia C o u n tyissue d a n o ti ce o f in tent to d ism iss L inco ln’sO u r ord er stated the f o ll o w ing : “T h e f

o reg o ing ap p li ca ti o n fo r a 6. cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyi s gr ant ed i n partand deni ed i n part . A cert i fi cat e of (c o n tin u e d ...) 4 pet i t i on w i thouta hea r i ng. Pa. R . C r i m . P. 907( 1) . L i ncol n r es ponded t o the not i ce w i th a l ett eri n w hi ch he r eques t ed an e vi dent i aryhear i ng and r ai s ed, forthe fi r s tt i m e, an i neff ect i venes s cl ai m agai ns thi s di r ect - appea l couns el . T he C our tof C om m on Pl eas d i s mi s s e d th e p e t i t i o n a n d , i n a l a t e ro p i n i o n wr i t t e n f o rth e p u rp o s e s o f

a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w, i tdid not address L i nco l n’s cl ai m of ap pell at e cou nsel i neff ect i ven ess. L i ncol n appea l ed pr o s e t o the Super i orC our t . T he Super i orC our tdi s m i s s ed L i ncol n’ s cl ai m of i neff ect i venes s of appe l l at e couns el , concl udi ng thatthe i s s ue w as w ai ved bec aus e i tw as notr ai s ed i n L i ncol n’ s pet i t i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef. T he Super i orC our taff

i r m ed the or der , fi ndi ng the cl ai m of i neff ect i venes s of tr i al couns el m er i t l es s . T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdeni ed al l ocatur .

In th e D istric t C o u rt, L in c o ln ’s p ro se p e tit io n f o r w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s a g a in r ai s ed the cl ai m s of i neff ect i venes s of tr i al couns el and appe l l at e couns el . O verrul i ng L i ncol n’ s obj ect i ons t o the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s R eportand R ecomm endat i on, the D i s tr i ct C our thel d thatL i ncol n’ s cl ai m of i neff ect i venes s of tr i al couns el w as m er i t l es s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o concl uded thatL i ncol n’ s cl ai m of i neff ect i venes s of appe l l at e couns el w as pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed, bas ed upon the Penns y l vani a Super i orC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of the cl ai m as w ai ved. W e ce r t i fi ed forappea l onl yL i ncol n’ s cl ai m of i neff ect i venes s of a p p e llate c o u n se l. 6( . . . cont i nued) 6. appea l abi l i tyi s gr ant ed on cl ai m 1 ( as num ber ed i n A ppel l ant ’ s pet i t i on fora w r i tof habea s corpus ) conce rni ng w hetherA ppel l antw as deni ed ef fec t i ve as s i s t ance of couns el w h e n A p p e lla n t’ s d ir e c t a p p e a l w a s w ith d ra w n . See Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 ); s ee al

s o R oe v. F l or es - O r t ega , 528 U . S. 470 ( 2000) . I n thei rbr i efi ng, the part i es s hal l addr es s w hetherthi s cl ai m w as defa ul t ed byvi r tue of the fa ctthatA ppel l ant ra ise d th is c laim in sta te c o u rt o n lyin h is re sp o n se to th e P C R A c o u rt’s n o tice o f in ten t to di s m i s s . W e dec l i ne t o i s s ue a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyon cl ai m 2 beca us e j ur i s t s of re a s o n w o u ld n o t d e b a te th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f th is c la im . Slack , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 4 8 4 .” 5 II. T he pr i nci pl es of fi nal i tyand comi tym andat e thata fe der al habea s courtm ay notr evi ew a s t at e courtdeci s i on thatr es t s “on a s t at e l aw gr ound thati s i ndepende ntof th e f e d e ra l q u e s tio n a n d a d e q u a te to s u p p o rtth e ju d g m e n t.” C ol em an v. Thom ps on , 501 U .S . 7 2 2 , 7 2 9 (1 9 9 1 ). In p a rticu lar , “a sta te p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt o f a n yf e d e ra l cla im w ill barfede r al habea s unl es s the pet i t i onerdemonstr at es caus e and a ctual pr ej udi ce. ” I d. at 7 4 8 . N onethel es s , the Supr eme C our tal s o s ai d: “The t erm s ‘ caus e’ and ‘ actual p re ju d ice ’ a re n o t rig id c o n c e p ts; th e ytak e th e ir m e a n in g f ro m th e p rin c ip les o f

c o m ity and fi nal i tydi s cus s ed above . I n appr opr i at e ca s es thos e pr i nci pl es m us ty i el d t o the i m per at i ve of c orr ect i ng a funda m ent al l yunj us ti ncar cer at i on. ” E ngl e v. I s s ac , 45 6 U. S. 107, 135 ( 1982) . T he C our texpr es s ed conf i dence that“vi ct i m s of a f undament al m i s carr i age of

i nj us t i ce w i l l m eetthe ca us e- and- pr ej udi ce s t andar d . . . . ” I d.W e ar e mi ndful of the D i s tr i ctA t t orney ’ s as s ert i on thatL i ncol n’ s pr es ent 7. a rg u m e n t in d e f

e n se o f h is rig h t to a d ire c t ap p e a l is w a iv e d b e c a u se it i s s u b sta n tially di ffe r entfr om ar gum ent s he pr evi ous l ym ade. N onethel es s , i thas been ourl ong- s t andi ng p ra c tic e to lib e ra lly c o n s tru e th e f ilin g s o f p ro s e p a rt ie s . U

nited S tates v. O t ero , 502 F. 3d 331, 334 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . Forthi s r eas on, w e do notr egar d L i ncol n’ s cl ai m as w a iv e d . 6

S in c e f irst ra isin g th e iss u e , L in c o ln h a s c o n sis ten tlya ss e rte d th a t itw a s h is i nt entt o exer ci s e hi s r i ghtt o a di r ectappea l and thatthi s r i ghtw as s quander ed thr ough hi s appel l at e couns el ’ s defi ci entper form ance . I n R o e v . F lo r e s -O r teg a , th e S u p r e me 7 C our ts ai d the fol l ow i ng:

In C r o n ic , P e n s o n , and R obbi ns , w e h e ld th a t th e c o m p lete deni al of couns el dur i ng a cr i t i cal s t age of a j udi ci al pr ocee di ng m andat es a pr es um pt i on of pr ej udi ce be caus e “the a d v e rsa ryp ro c e ss itse lf ” h a s b e e n re n d e re d “ p re su m p tiv e ly unr el i abl e. ” C ro n ic , s u p r a , at659. T he eve n m or e s er i ous deni al of the ent i r e j udi ci al pr ocee di ng i t s el f, w hi ch a d e f e n d a n t w a n ted a t th e tim e a n d to w h ich h e h a d a rig h t, s i mi l a r l yd e ma n d s a p r e s u mp t i o n o f p r e j u d i c e . P u ts i mp l y , we cannotacc or d any“ ‘ pr es um pt i on of r el i abi l i ty , ’ ” R obbi ns , at 2 8 6 , to ju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s th a t n e v e r t o o k p la c e . R o e v . F lo r e s -O r teg a , 528 U . S. 470, 483 ( 2000) ( ci t i ng U n itedS ta tes . v. C ro n ic , 46 6 U. S. 6 4 8 (1 9 8 4 ); P e n so n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U .S . 7 5 (1 9 8 8 ); Sm i th v. R obbi ns , 528 U . S. 259 ( 2000) ( ci t at i ons t o Supr eme C our tR eport erom i t t ed) ) . A ppl y i ng F l or es - O r t ega , L in c o ln ’s c laim of an unf ai rdeni al of hi s r i ghtt o a di r ectappea l , i f s uffi ci ent l ys uppor t ed byevi dence , w oul d cons t i tut e a mani fes ti nj us t i ce s uffi ci entt o gr anthi s pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as c o rp u s , re g a rd le s s o f

a n yp ro c e d u ra l d e f

e c t.7 W i th thats ai d, w e fi nd the r ecor d ber eftof evi dence t o gr ound anyrul i ng on t he iss u e o f w h e th e r su c h a m a n if

e st in ju stic e h a s a c tu a llyo c c u rre d . T h e re c o rd in d ica tes o n ly thatL i ncol n’ s couns el t i m el yfi l ed an appeal i n N ovember2003, and that , pr es um abl yat the re q u est o f L inco ln’s co u n sel, the S u p erior C o u rtd isco n ti n u ed the a p p ea l i n Jan u ary 2004. T hi s , al one, i s i ns uffi ci entt o as cert ai n w hetherL i ncol n’ s r i ghtt o a di r ectappea l w as pr ej udi ced be caus e w e do notknow i f couns el act ed i n cons ul t at i on w i th L i ncol n. For thi s r eas on, w e fi nd thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed byfai l i ng t o l ook bey ond the pr ocedur al defa ul ti s s ue and c ons i derw hetherL i ncol n coul d demonstr at e pr ej udi ce s uffi ci entt o gr ant hi s pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l r emand t he ca us e t o the D istric t C o u rt f

o r it to c o n sid e r th is iss u e . W e stre ss th a t itre m a in s L in c o ln ’s b u rd e n to d em o n str ate tha t “th ere is a reas o n ab le pro b ab il itythat, b u t fo r co u n sel’s de ficien t fail u re to c o n s u lt w ith h im ” a b o u t th e a p p e a l, h e w o u ld h a v e p u rs u e d h is d ir e c t a p p e a l. F l oresO r teg a , 5 2 8 U .S . a t 4 8 4 . III .

Forthe above s t at ed r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e the or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tand r emand t he ca us e w i th i ns truct i ons t o cons i derw hetherL i ncol n’ s r i ghtt o a di r ectappea l w a s p re ju d ice d b yth e c o n d u c t o f h is d ire c t-a p p e a l co u n se l.