Opinion ID: 3169661
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-conviction review

Text: Mr. Griffin asserted a cursory due process claim in his brief to the KCA on behalf of his first post-conviction relief attempt, but he does not argue he asserted this claim to the KSC. His petition to the KSC for review, which was submitted only after he filed his petition for panel rehearing to this court, did not, for the reasons presented above, establish that he fairly presented or exhausted his due process claim. Mr. Griffin attempted to present his due process claim to the state district court in 2010 when he filed his second post-conviction motion.6 The district court denied the motion as successive. Mr. Griffin did not appeal the denial. Mr. Griffin consequently did not raise the due process claim before the KCA or the KSC in his second round of post-conviction relief. Mr. Griffin did not raise the due process claim in his third attempt at postconviction relief.