Opinion ID: 1040865
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: McKinney’s “shackling” claim is procedurally

Text: defaulted. McKinney’s “shackling” claim is not exhausted, because he failed to raise it to the Arizona Supreme Court or in his PCR Petition. As with the dual jury claims, we reject McKinney’s argument that the claim was exhausted by virtue 18 MCKINNEY V. RYAN of Hedlund raising it on direct appeal. See Williams, 431 F.2d at 932–33. We also reject McKinney’s argument that this claim was exhausted due to the Arizona Supreme Court’s fundamental error review. “Where the parties did not mention an issue in their briefs and where the court did not mention it was considering that issue sua sponte, there is no evidence that the appellate court actually considered the issue, regardless of its duty to review for fundamental error, and the issue cannot be deemed exhausted.” Moormann v. Schriro, 426 F.3d 1044, 1057 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Martinez-Villareal v. Lewis, 80 F.3d 1301, 1306 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Under Arizona law, fundamental error review does not prevent subsequent procedural preclusion.”). This unexhausted claim is now procedurally barred, because McKinney would be barred from raising it to the state court. Beaty, 303 F.3d at 987; see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a), 32.4. Further, McKinney makes no argument for “cause” to excuse the default. Although McKinney makes numerous arguments of prejudice and injustice, he does not support these arguments with citations to any evidence in the record.7 Thus, McKinney’s “shackling” claim is procedurally barred. 7 The only evidence offered to the state court on prejudice were statements from members of Hedlund’s jury. Even if this evidence were probative of the McKinney jury’s prejudice, it actually cuts against a prejudice finding. While jurors clearly saw the leg brace, the only jurors interviewed stated that the leg brace had no bearing on their verdict. While not “dispositive” of the prejudice issue, see Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 570 (1986), the jurors’ statements arguably have some weight. Unlike the juror statements that were given “little stock” in Holbrook, the jurors gave their impressions of the leg brace in this case after the trial was over, not during voir dire. See id. MCKINNEY V. RYAN 19