Opinion ID: 222859
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Venus Shaver's testimony

Text: In his federal habeas petition, Woods asserted that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to address Venus Shaver's recovery of her memory of the attack and failed to cross-examine her adequately on her prior false claim that Woods raped her. The district court concluded that because Woods had failed to fairly present these claims to the state court, they were procedurally barred. On appeal, Woods argues that the district court's determination was erroneous. We disagree. In his opening brief, Woods admits that he did not specifically address in his PRP his counsel's failure to impeach Venus Shaver effectively. In fact, Woods's Washington Supreme Court PRP makes no mention of either Venus Shaver or her recovered memories. He argues, however, that because these new arguments do not fundamentally alter his claim that trial counsel were ineffective and unprepared to impeach witnesses, he fully and fairly presented it to the state court. Although Woods alleged the specific Sixth Amendment guarantee recognized by Strickland, his state court petition did not make any reference to his counsel's failure to impeach Venus Shaver. The most analogous claim is Woods's allegation that his counsel failed to impeach Johnny Knight properly. That claim simply did not provide a sufficient factual basis for the state supreme court to have a fair opportunity to apply controlling legal principles to the facts relating to the claim. Thus, we agree with the district court's judgment that Woods failed to exhaust this claim and that it is procedurally defaulted. [18]