Opinion ID: 172832
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was the Issue Fairly Presented?

Text: Mr. Bethurum claims to have exhausted his state-court remedies in the course of three separate rounds of state postconviction proceedings. First, on -4- October 28, 2004, he filed a motion under Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) and (c). He was denied relief by the state district court, appealed unsuccessfully to the Colorado Court of Appeals, and then unsuccessfully petitioned for certiorari in the Colorado Supreme Court. We will refer to these proceedings as the First Round. Next, on June 8, 2006, he initiated his Second Round by filing a claim under both Colorado’s habeas corpus statute (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-45-101) and a federal civil-rights statute (42 U.S.C. § 1983). Again, he was denied relief by the district court. He did not appeal to the state court of appeals but unsuccessfully sought a writ of certiorari from the Colorado Supreme Court. Finally, in August 2007 he initiated his Third Round by filing another postconviction motion under Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a). The trial court denied that motion, and his appeal was rejected by the Colorado Court of Appeals as untimely. We discuss the three rounds in reverse order:
Mr. Bethurum raised an ex post facto claim in his district-court pleading in Round Three. As previously stated, however, he could exhaust the claim only by pursuing it through “one complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.” O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845. In that regard, he failed. Although he filed a notice of appeal with the Colorado Court of Appeals after being denied relief in state district court, the notice was untimely and the appellate court refused to hear the case. An untimely appeal does not properly exhaust state -5- remedies because it does not permit the state court to address the merits of the claim. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (claim dismissed by state appellate court for untimely filing of notice of appeal cannot be brought in federal habeas absent showing of cause); id. at 732 (“[A] habeas petitioner who has failed to meet the State’s procedural requirements for presenting his federal claims has deprived the state courts of an opportunity to address those claims in the first instance.”).
Mr. Bethurum also mentioned the Ex Post Facto Clause in Round Two. But that mention was only in his reply brief in support of his petition for certiorari filed in the Colorado Supreme Court. Raising the issue in the reply brief was too late. Colorado appellate practice is illustrated by People v. Czemerynski, 786 P.2d 1100 (Colo. 1990), in which the court refused to consider an argument on appeal that had not been raised until the reply brief. The court cited a leading treatise for the standard rule of appellate practice, stating: “Under these circumstances, the issue is not properly before us and we will not address it. 9 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3974 (1977) (Issues not raised in appellant’s initial brief will normally not be considered by the court.).” Id. at 1107; accord People v. Salinas, 55 P.3d 268, 270 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002) (refusing to consider issue not raised until reply brief); see Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 31 (indicating that issue is not “‘fairly present[ed]’” to state court if consideration -6- of issue “would force state appellate judges to alter their ordinary review practices”);
Mr. Bethurum contends that in Round One he raised his ex post facto claim both in the Colorado Court of Appeals and the Colorado Supreme Court. In the Colorado Court of Appeals, however, he mentioned the Ex Post Facto Clause only in his reply brief. As explained in our discussion regarding Round Two, that was too late to present the issue fairly to the appellate court, see Czemerynski, 786 P.2d at 1107, and the court of appeals did not address the issue. As for the Colorado Supreme Court, he contends that the issue was presented in two ways. First, he argues that the supreme court acknowledged that it had reviewed the issue. He notes that the issue was raised in his reply brief to the court of appeals and points to a statement in the supreme court’s denial of his petition for certiorari that it had “review[ed] . . . the record, the briefs, and the opinion of [the] Court of Appeals.” Aplt. App. at 167. But the only reasonable interpretation of the quoted language is that the court had reviewed those documents for the purpose of informing itself with respect to the issues raised in the petition for certiorari. It would be remarkable if that court had taken upon itself the task of considering every issue that had been raised previously in that case in the courts below. See Colo. App. R. 53(a)(1) (requiring a petition for -7- certiorari to include a list of issues presented for review, and stating that “[o]nly the issues set forth or fairly comprised therein will be considered”). Second, he argues that the issue was raised in his petition for certiorari by means of a cross-reference to the reply brief in his petition for certiorari in Round Two (which was being reviewed by the Colorado Supreme Court at the same time as it was reviewing his petition in Round One). His Round One petition states: “A direct and concise argument is available in the CAR. 21 habeas corpus and combined U.S.C. 42 § 1983 currently before this honorable court.” Aplt. App. at 164. But an argument is not fairly presented if the court must “alter [its] ordinary review practices” to reach the issue, Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 31, and, as noted in the prior paragraph, the Colorado Appellate Rules state that the supreme court will review an issue on certiorari only if it is listed as an issue for review in the petition for certiorari, see Colo. App. R. 53(a)(1). Thus, Mr. Bethurum failed to present properly his Ex Post Facto Clause claim in any of the three rounds of proceedings.