Case Name: Rodriguez SPEAR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Tony HOWERTON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-21
Citations: 260 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: No. 06-14295
Parties: Rodriguez SPEAR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Tony HOWERTON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 260
Pages: 208–209

Head Matter:
Rodriguez SPEAR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Tony HOWERTON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-14295
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Dec. 21, 2007.
Rodriguez Spear, Grovetown, GA, pro se.
Jason Charles Fisher, Attorney General’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Respondent Appellee.
Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rodriguez Spear, a Georgia state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his federal habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We granted a certificate of appealability ("COA") on the following issue:
Whether the district court erred in concluding that appellant's following ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims were procedurally defaulted because he did not raise them in state court:
(a) counsel pursued an insanity defense against his wishes;
(b) counsel failed to present witnesses on his behalf;
(c) counsel failed to provide him with an adequate defense;
(d) counsel failed to present evidence on his behalf; and
(e) counsel failed to object to the admission of similar transaction evidence
The district court found these claims to be procedurally defaulted based on Spear's purported failure to raise them in state court. However, as Spear correctly argues, and the state concedes, Spear did adequately raise these claims in state court, and the district court is therefore in error. Because the district court erred in finding that Spear procedurally defaulted the five ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims specified in the COA, we vacate the decision of the district court as to these claims and remand the § 2254 petition for further consideration.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
. We do not address the merits of these claims because the district court has not yet had an opportunity to do so first and because a merits analysis is outside the scope of the COA.