Opinion ID: 172410
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether McCormick has exhausted his state remedies as to the 2004 sentence

Text: On direct appeal of his 2004 convictions, McCormick challenged the district court's refusal to appoint substitute counsel; the admission of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment; the admission of prejudicial photographs; the denial of the defendant's request for a psychological evaluation of the victim; and the court's jury instructions on aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary. McCormick, 159 P.3d at 199. He further contend[ed] the prosecution prejudiced his ability to obtain a fair trial by withholding exculpatory evidence and committing multiple instances of misconduct. Id. McCormick's appeal in the Kansas courts thus did not challenge his 2004 sentence, nor, more particularly, that sentence's enhancement by the effect of his 2001 convictions on the calculation of his Criminal History Category  a calculation to which he also did not object during the 2004 sentencing proceeding. Neither has McCormick demonstrated any other means by which he fairly presented to the state courts, Oyler, 23 F.3d at 300, such a challenge. Therefore, we conclude that he has not satisfied § 2254's and Lackawanna 's procedural prerequisite[ ] ... [of] exhaustion of remedies, 532 U.S. at 404, 121 S.Ct. 1567. Because McCormick has not met the threshold prerequisites for a Lackawanna claim, we need not and do not reach the merits of his argument that he is in custody pursuant to one of the Lackawanna exceptions.