Opinion ID: 793602
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: continually questioning witnesses regarding Petitioner's character,

Text: 133 (d) arguing that the defense sanitized and whitewashed the case, and that it had prevented the jury from looking at the true facts in the case (J.A. at 10351), 134 (e) arguing that defense counsel knew that they were had (J.A. at 10352), 135 (f) arguing that the jury should consider the terror the victims experienced (J.A. at 10354), 136 (g) arguing facts not in evidence by stating that Petitioner looked into the eyes of Karen Avery before he shot her, 137 (h) exhorting the jury to return a guilty verdict so Petitioner could suffer the consequences (J.A. at 10360), 138
139 (j) appealing to the juror's sense of community to take vengeance on Petitioner, and 140 (k) coercing a potential defense witness. 141 ( See Pet'r Br. 58-59). 142 Of these subclaims, Petitioner has preserved only subclaims (i) and (k) by arguing them on direct appeal. Petitioner raised the remainder of his subclaims for the first time on collateral attack in state court. On collateral review, the Ohio Court of Appeals held all of Petitioner's claims based on prosecutorial misconduct barred by res judicata. Lundgren, No. 97-L-110, 1998 WL 964592, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 6164, at . For procedural default in this Court, however, only those claims which Petitioner failed to bring on direct review and which were subsequently barred are deemed procedurally defaulted. Therefore, subclaims (i) and (k) are preserved for review, while the remaining subclaims are procedurally defaulted. 143 Here, Petitioner has not argued that his counsel's performance on direct appeal was ineffective. Nor has Petitioner presented any cause for his appellate counsel's failure to bring his prosecutorial misconduct subclaims (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (j) on direct appeal. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to overcome his procedural default on these subclaims.