Opinion ID: 719651
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Independence of the State Procedural Ground

Text: 38 Morales argues in the alternative that, even if all the claims were properly denied on procedural grounds, these grounds were not clearly independent of the rulings on the merits. Federal habeas review is not barred if the state decision  'fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law.'  Coleman, 501 U.S. at 735, 111 S.Ct. at 2557 (quoting Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 3476, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983)). Morales argues that the California Supreme Court's procedural rulings were interwoven with the federal claims because (1) the orders state that the claims are denied also on the merits and (2) the state court's conclusions about timeliness entailed a consideration of the merits. Because we conclude that the timeliness Standards themselves as applied to Morales are not an adequate and independent ground barring federal review, we need not address these arguments.