Opinion ID: 663989
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure To Advise of Constitutional Rights

Text: 18 Sand also contends that his plea was involuntary because the trial judge failed to advise him of his constitutional rights at the change-of-plea hearing, as required by Boykin, 395 U.S. at 242-43. Sand raised this claim for the first time in his federal habeas petition. The district court advised him that he could either return to state court to exhaust this unexhausted claim, or proceed on his original petition and forfeit his right to obtain review of this unexhausted claim in federal court. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 520 (1982); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(b). Sand chose to proceed on his original petition. Accordingly, we will not address the merits of this unexhausted claim. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 520. 19 AFFIRMED.