Opinion ID: 168806
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exhaustion/Procedural Bar

Text: 23 Oklahoma argues on appeal that Anderson's ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim is both unexhausted and procedurally barred. In particular, Oklahoma asserts that to properly exhaust the claim, Anderson was required to file a successive application for post-conviction relief raising such a claim in the OCCA despite the OCCA's denial of Anderson's request for an extension to prepare an application. Having failed to file such an application, Oklahoma asserts the claim is not only unexhausted, but also subject to application of an anticipatory procedural bar. 24 There is a `strong presumption' in favor of requiring exhaustion of state remedies. Beavers v. Saffle, 216 F.3d 918, 924 n. 3 (10th Cir.2000). Nevertheless, this court has recognized a narrow exception to the exhaustion requirement where [f]urther state court proceedings would be futile. Bear v. Boone, 173 F.3d 782, 785 (10th Cir.1999). A review of the order of the OCCA denying Anderson's request for time to prepare a successive application for post-conviction relief demonstrates this is one of those unusual cases in which further proceedings in state court would most assuredly have been futile. Accordingly, Anderson was not required to file such an application to exhaust his state court remedies. 25 As noted above, within a week of contracting with OIDS to represent Anderson in the filing of a successive state application for post-conviction relief, Miller filed the Notice in the OCCA setting out the complicated procedural history of Anderson's case and requesting time to prepare an adequate post-conviction application raising the issue of trial counsel's ineffective assistance during the penalty phase of the trial. 6 In denying that request, the OCCA made absolutely clear that because any such successor application Anderson could potentially file in state court would be barred by application of Rule 9.7(G)(3), no extension was necessary. In its order denying the Notice, the OCCA began by noting that Anderson's request for additional time to file a successive application for post-conviction relief fell under the authority of 22 O.S.2001, § 1089(D)(2) & (8) and Rule 9.7(G), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, app. (2002). The OCCA further noted that under subsection three of Rule 9.7(G), it would not consider a subsequent application for post-conviction relief unless such application is filed within sixty days of the discovery of the factual basis supporting the new claim for relief. With that as background, the OCCA concluded as follows: 26 The motion before this Court avers that Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and during the course of preparing for his habeas petition, counsel found that trial counsel had failed to investigate relevant mitigating evidence. Accordingly, Petitioner's habeas counsel requested the federal court excuse Petitioner's failure to raise the ineffective assistance of counsel issue earlier. The federal judge issued an order holding the habeas petition in abeyance pending exhaustion in state court of the unexhausted claim. Accordingly, petitioner's counsel has requested this Court to grant him four months in which to review, investigate and prepare an adequate successor post-conviction application. 27 Petitioner admits that the evidence he seeks to discover was readily available and discoverable by direct appeal counsel. The rules applicable to post-conviction, require filing within sixty days from the date the previously unavailable legal or factual basis serving as the basis for a new issue is announced or discovered. Petitioner's claim that he should be excused from this rule as failure to review the potential claims would result in a miscarriage of justice is not persuasive considering his federal court filings and nearly three-year delay in filing for subsequent post-conviction relief. 28 Petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a successor application for post-conviction relief is hereby DENIED. 29 As this passage makes crystal clear, the OCCA denied Anderson's request for additional time to prepare an adequate successor application for post-conviction relief because any such petition would be barred from review under the terms of Rule 9.7(G)(3). Thus, there is a definitive ruling from the state court that it will not review on the merits a successor application from Anderson raising a claim that trial counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase for failing to develop an adequate case in mitigation. Because Anderson was not required to undertake a meaningless and utterly futile act to properly exhaust his state court remedies, Beavers, 216 F.3d at 924 n. 3; Bear, 173 F.3d at 785, this court rejects Oklahoma's contention that Anderson was required to nevertheless file a successor application for post-conviction relief to exhaust his ineffective assistance claim. Thus, like the district court, we conclude Anderson's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the penalty phase is exhausted. 30 Having concluded Anderson's ineffective assistance claim is exhausted, this court must next consider whether the claim is nevertheless procedurally barred. Clayton v. Gibson, 199 F.3d 1162, 1170 (10th Cir.1999). The procedural bar question is complicated, however, by Oklahoma's dogged insistence that Anderson's ineffective assistance claim is unexhausted. Building on that faulty foundation, Oklahoma further insists this court should apply an anticipatory procedural bar 7 because Anderson's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the penalty phase of the trial would be procedurally barred under Okla Stat. Ann tit. 22, §§ 1086, 1089(D)(2) 8 upon return to state court. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 735 n. 1, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). 31 The problem with Oklahoma's argument is that, as detailed above, Anderson's claim of ineffective assistance is exhausted precisely because the OCCA has clearly and unequivocally stated the claim is barred by Rule 9.7(G)(3). The state procedural rule actually identified and applied by the OCCA to bar review of Anderson's claim is entirely distinct from the rule identified by Oklahoma as potentially applying on an anticipatory basis. Because Oklahoma has never countenanced the possibility that Anderson's ineffective assistance claim is actually exhausted or wavered from its position that the state procedural bars set out in §§ 1086 and 1089(D)(2) should apply anticipatorily, it has never addressed the adequacy of Rule 9.7(G)(3), the procedural bar actually applied by the OCCA. But cf. Johnson, 486 U.S. at 587-89, 108 S.Ct. 1981 (reviewing whether procedural bar actually applied by state court was adequate to bar federal court habeas review of a claim set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2254). As did the district court, we conclude Oklahoma's refusal to defend the adequacy of the procedural bar actually applied by the OCCA leaves this court with no choice but to proceed to the merits of Anderson's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. 32 On habeas review, this court does not address issues that have been defaulted in state court on an independent and adequate state procedural ground, unless the petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. English v. Cody, 146 F.3d 1257, 1259 (10th Cir.1998). The independence of Rule 9.7(G)(3) is not at issue in this case. Anderson has, however, challenged the adequacy of that rule. [T]o be adequate, a state rule of procedural default must be applied evenhandedly in the vast majority of cases. Id.; see also Johnson, 486 U.S. at 587, 108 S.Ct. 1981 (holding that a state procedural rule in not adequate to bar federal habeas review unless the rule is strictly or regularly followed (quotations omitted)). Because the effective assistance of counsel lies at the very foundation of the adversary system of criminal justice, this court has been particularly vigilant in scrutinizing the adequacy of state rules of procedural default which have the effect of barring federal habeas review of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. English, 146 F.3d at 1259. 33 Before the district court, Anderson cited multiple instances in which the OCCA had declined to apply the procedural bar set out in Rule 9.7(G)(3) in situations assertedly similar to his. Anderson also noted the OCCA had previously held it had the power to grant relief, despite the plain time limits set out in Rule 9.7(G)(3), when to do so was necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Valdez v. State, 46 P.3d 703, 710-11 (Okla.Crim.App.2002). Taken together, Anderson asserted these two facts rendered Rule 9.7(G)(3) inadequate to bar federal habeas review of his ineffective assistance claim. English, 146 F.3d at 1259 (to be adequate to bar federal habeas review, a state procedural rule must be applied evenhandedly in the vast majority of cases); Gutierrez v. Moriarty, 922 F.2d 1464, 1470 (10th Cir.1991) (holding that a state court's assertion of discretion to waive a procedural rule militates against concluding the rule is adequate). Anderson reasserts these arguments on appeal. 34 Because Anderson came forward with specific allegations as to the inadequacy of Rule 9.7(G)(3), the burden shifted to Oklahoma to prove the adequacy of the Rule to bar federal habeas review. Hooks, 184 F.3d at 1217. Oklahoma has made no attempt, either before the district court or this court, to defend the adequacy of Rule 9.7(G)(3). Accordingly, under the particular circumstances of this case, we conclude Rule 9.7(G)(3) is not adequate to bar federal habeas review of Anderson's claim of ineffective assistance. Thus, we proceed to the merits of the claim. 9