Opinion ID: 653184
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Procedural Default on Claim of Excessive Sentence

Text: 13 Antonelli asserts that the district court improperly concluded that he had procedurally defaulted on his claim of excessive sentence. A district court may only consider a claim for relief under Sec. 2254 when the claim has been exhausted in state court. Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351, 109 S.Ct. 1056, 1059 (1989). Antonelli failed to present his claim of excessive sentence to the Arizona Supreme Court. See Jennison v. Goldsmith, 940 F.2d 1308, 1310-11 (9th Cir.1991) (although supreme court review is discretionary, petitioner must afford the supreme court the opportunity to review the merits of the claim). 14 Absent exhaustion in state court, a district court may review a claim which has not been exhausted upon a showing of cause for the procedural default and actual prejudice resulting therefrom. Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 262 (1989). The only assertion made by Antonelli in his memorandum was that the facts of his case should have called to mind an excessive sentence claim. Because the district court could properly find that Antonelli's showing was insufficient, the court correctly held that Antonelli was barred from asserting this claim in his petition. 15