Opinion ID: 777766
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Attach Documentation

Text: 26 Respondent raises a second procedural default argument. He claims that Petitioner failed to attach documentation in support of his state postconviction ineffective assistance claims. Petitioner attached the affidavits of trial attorneys Ken Murray and Michael Gleespen to the postconviction petition, but the affidavits do not mention the pharmacologist claim (which was raised) or the deficiencies concerning the penalty phase (which were not raised). Petitioner has thus defaulted those claims otherwise properly preserved by failing to present the necessary proof in the state postconviction review. See Byrd v. Collins, 209 F.3d 486, 512 (6th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1082, 121 S.Ct. 786, 148 L.Ed.2d 682 (2001); Mapes v. Coyle, 171 F.3d 408, 421-22 (6th Cir.1999). This procedural rule has been routinely and regularly applied in the Ohio courts. See, e.g., State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E.2d 905, 910 (Ohio 1999); State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107, 413 N.E.2d 819, 823 (Ohio 1983). See generally Maupin v. Smith, 785 F.2d 135, 138 (6th Cir. 1986) (setting forth four factor test to determine if a claim is procedurally defaulted); Greer, 264 F.3d at 672-73 (discussing Maupin ). However, the state court of appeals in this case (the last explained state court judgment addressing this issue) did not rely on this procedural ground in denying Petitioner relief. Thus, we are not barred from reviewing this issue due to procedural default. And again, Respondent did not raise this defense in his Return of the Writ, although he did raise it in a separate district court proceeding. See Respondent's Brief Regarding AEDPA's Effect on Lorraine's Expansion of the Record, Discovery and Evidentiary Hearing Requests, p. 7. 27 In short, Petitioner's various claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in mitigation, as articulated in his federal habeas petition, are arguably procedurally defaulted. It would therefore not be improper for us to decline review of these claims, since the state courts did not have the opportunity to address them. See Buell, 274 F.3d at 349 (noting that a petitioner's failure to raise his claims in Ohio courts is an adequate and independent state law ground for denying the writ). Furthermore, Petitioner has not shown actual prejudice or a fundamental carriage of justice will result if we enforce the procedural default doctrine. See Seymour, 224 F.3d at 550. Notwithstanding, given the somewhat oblique manner in which Respondent raised the defense, we opt to address the merits.