Document: 489 U.S. 346 109 S.Ct. 1056 103 L.Ed.2d 380 Ronald D. CASTILLE, etc., et al., Petitionersv.Michael PEOPLES. No. 87-1602. Argued Dec. 6, 1988. Decided Feb. 22, 1989. Rehearing Denied May 15, See 490 1076, 2091. Syllabus Following the Pennsylvania Superior Court's affirmance, on direct appeal, of respondent's conviction assault, robbery, and related crimes, he filed with State Supreme Court successive unsuccessful petitions for allocatur, which, under state law, can be granted in court's discretion "only when there are special important reasons therefor." Respondent next a petition federal habeas relief, raising various claims, some which had been raised before courts only one or other allocatur. The Federal District dismissed failure to exhaust remedies. Appeals reversed remanded. Without considering whether respondent could obtain collateral review his court held that their inclusion allocatur sufficiently exhausted remedies, since State's highest thereby given an opportunity correct alleged constitutional infirmities conviction. Held: 1. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c) provides state-law judgment cannot reviewed if petitioner has right "to raise, by any available procedure, question presented." This bar does not apply where already made "fair presentation" particular claim appeals, such situation it reasonably assumed even further procedures available, resort them would useless. That assumption is justified, however, presented first time procedural context its merits will considered unless "there Raising issue fashion purposes exception, continues apply. therefore erred resting conclusion remedies upon presentation claims petitions. Pp. 349-351. 2. Wheth r requisite exhaustion nonetheless exists because now procedurally barred law should decided remand. P. 351-352. 838 F.2d 462 (CA3 1987), SCALIA, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Gaele M. Barthold, Philadelphia, Pa., petitioners. Robert E. Welsh, Jr., respondent. Justice SCALIA 1 jury trial Common Pleas, Michael Peoples, who arrested robbing man then setting him fire, was convicted "arson—endangering persons," aggravated robbery. affirmed appeal. Commonwealth v. 319 Pa.Super. 621, 466 A.2d 720 (1983). pro se appointment counsel Under "is matter right, but sound judicial discretion, appeal allowed Pa.Rule App.Proc. 1114. request without reaching presented. Shortly thereafter, respondent, represented appointed counsel, submitted second some, all, se. On November 4, 1985, denied opinion. 2 July 28, 1986, relief United States Eastern Pennsylvania, asserting: (1) prosecutor violated due process, crossexamining regard unrelated crimes; (2) Pleas arbitrarily deprived bench trial; (3) police used unreasonably suggestive identification procedures, tainted prosecution's in-court identifications; (4) defense rendered ineffective assistance failing move suppress state's evidence obtained from illegal arrest search seizure, contest introduction acted contempt drastically altering hairstyle just prior scheduled lineup. 3 After reviewing history each claim, Upon Third Circuit remanded hearing merits. Peoples Fulcomer, (1987) (judgment order). found but, these review, Specifically, either later counseled were virtue It believed this result dictated Chaussard 816 925 (1987), earlier opinion, read our case provide "the rule satisfied have 'opportunity pass correct' violations prisoner's rights." Id., at 928, quoting Fay Noia, 372 391, 438, 83 822, 848, 9 837 (1963). panel concluded discretionary nature "does affect fact [the] . gave opport nity infirmity criminal convictio[n]." F.2d, 928. We certiorari consider more, satisfies requirements 2254. 486 1004, 108 1727, 100 192 (1988). 4 Respondent's as claims. Rose Lundy, 455 509, 102 1198, 71 379 (1982). requirement, enunciated Ex parte Royall, 117 241, 6 734, 29 L.Ed. 868 (1886), grounded principles comity reflects desire "protect courts' role enforcement law," supra, U.S., 518, S.Ct., 1203. In addition, requirement based pragmatic recognition "federal fully more often accompanied complete factual record aid review." 519, 1203-1204. Codified 1948 2254,1 rule, while jurisdictional Granberry Greer, 481 129, 107 1671, 95 119 creates "strong presumption favor requiring prisoner pursue remedies." 131, 1674; see also 515, 1201-1202 ("[S]tate must except unusual circumstances"). 5 Today we address again what become familiar inquiry: "To extent seeks resorting court?" Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 78, 97 2497, 2502, 53 594 (1977) (emphasis added). shall deemed so long "has Read narrowly, language appears preclude finding possibility state-court review. have, expressly rejected construction, Brown Allen, 344 443, 448-449, n. 3, 73 397, 403, 469 (1953), holding instead once ruled necessary ask same issues 447, 402. interpretation reconciles 2254(b), lie corrective processes "ineffective protect rights prisoner." inconsistent latter provision, well underlying comity, mandate recourse whose results effectively predetermined, permanently prisoners postconviction technically inexhaustible. Circuit's analysis present derives manner applied olding Smith Digmon, 434 332, 98 597, 54 582 (1978) (per curiam), where, Alabama Criminal failed explicitly properly Chaussard, 928-929. Finding petitioner, stated Digmon "[i]t too obvious merit extended discussion 2254(b) turn appellate chooses ignore squarely petitioner's brief court, and, indeed, case, vigorously opposed brief." 333, 599. reason point "too discussion" settled "once [a] fairly courts, satisfied." Picard Connor, 404 270, 275, 92 512, 30 438 (1971) below held, contends here, submission new constitutes fair presentation. disagree. 7 Although narrow 2254(c), blue-penciled provision text statute. reasonable infer exception actually passed Brown; ignored (and impliedly rejected), Digmon. both those contexts, assume proceedings Such appropriate, however inference justified—where therefor," not, relevant purpose, constitute presentation." Hawk, 321 114, 64 448, 88 572 (1944) (application Nebraska original writ corpus remedies); Pitchess Davis, 421 482, 1748, 44 317 (1975) curiam) (motions California Appeal pre-trial prohibition do remedies). 8 follows said error rest may exist, course, clear law. See, e.g., Engle Isaac, 456 107, 125-126, 1558, 1570-1571, 783 (1982); Teague Lane, 288, 297-298, 1060, 1068, 334 (1989). leave Appeals. reversed, consistent ordered. Section 2254 part provides: "(b) An application behalf person custody pursuant applicant State, absence process existence circumstances rendering prisoner. "(c) within meaning section,

Category: 0