Opinion ID: 77713
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ogle Exhausted Seven of His Eight Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.

Text: 13 The habeas statute requires applicants to exhaust all available state law remedies before filing a federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). [T]he federal claim must be fairly presented to the state courts so that the state courts have had the first opportunity to hear the claim sought to be vindicated in the federal habeas proceeding. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-76, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971). It is not enough that Ogle, in his state habeas petition, attacked his postconviction counsel as inadequate for her failure to raise meritorious issues. [A] habeas petitioner may not present instances of ineffective assistance of counsel in his federal petition that the state court has not evaluated previously. Footman v. Singletary, 978 F.2d 1207, 1211 (11th Cir.1992). To have exhausted these eight claims, Ogle had to present the eight instances of ineffective assistance that he now asserts in his federal petition such that a reasonable reader would understand each claim's particular legal basis and specific factual foundation. McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1302 (11th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). 14 The state habeas court explicitly rejected three of Ogle's arguments, and Warden Johnson confesses that these claims were exhausted. The state habeas court concluded that Ogle's appellate counsel was permitted not to argue that the prosecutor failed to disclose a plea agreement with Ogle's codefendant (Issue 2), to assert that the state impermissibly [commented] on [Ogle's] right to remain silent (Issue 1), or to allege that the prosecutor had improperly injected his personal opinion into closing argument (Issue 5). The district court erred when it determined that these arguments were procedurally defaulted. 15 Warden Johnson argues that Ogle failed to exhaust any issue that the state habeas court did not address in its order, but we disagree. A habeas petitioner exhausts available state remedies when he fairly presents his claim for a state remedy even if the state never acts on his claim. See Breazeale v. Bradley, 582 F.2d 5, 6 (5th Cir.1978) ([A] federal habeas petitioner will be excused from the exhaustion requirement if the state unreasonably delays acting on his efforts to invoke state remedies.). It is too obvious to merit extended discussion that whether the exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) has been satisfied cannot turn upon whether a state ... court chooses to ignore in its opinion a federal constitutional claim squarely raised . . . in the state court. Smith v. Digmon, 434 U.S. 332, 333, 98 S.Ct. 597, 599, 54 L.Ed.2d 582 (1978). The written order of the state court is a starting, not an ending, point for our analysis of exhaustion. See, e.g., Footman, 978 F.2d at 1212 ([T]he magistrate judge should not have relied upon the state trial court's order to determine which allegations Footman presented in his state post-conviction motion.). The opinion of the state habeas court establishes that Ogle exhausted the issues addressed in that opinion, but we cannot conclude, based only on the silence of that opinion about other issues, that Ogle presented no other arguments. 16 Ogle persuasively argues that he fairly presented several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel through his direct testimony, the examination of his post-trial attorney, the entry of his pro se memorandum into evidence, and the filing of a post-hearing brief. In Francis v. Spraggins, we held that a Georgia petitioner exhausted his claim in the state habeas court when he made a general allegation of ineffective assistance in his state habeas petition and called specific instances of ineffective assistance to the attention of the court during the proceedings: 17 This is not to say that a general allegation of ineffective assistance or a specific allegation of ineffective assistance wholly unrelated to the ground on which the claim ultimately depends will immunize a petitioner from a finding of procedural default. But where the petitioner calls the state court's attention to ineffective assistance problems and the court examines the crucial aspect of counsel's representation, as in this case, the petitioner may relitigate the constitutional claim in federal court. 18 720 F.2d 1190, 1193 (11th Cir.1983). 19 Our review of the record of Ogle's state habeas proceeding reveals that, in addition to the three issues upon which the state habeas court explicitly passed judgment, Ogle presented another four of the eight allegations of ineffective assistance that he described in his federal habeas petition. In his testimony, Ogle complained that his postconviction counsel had been ineffective when she refused to raise the issues in his memorandum, which he offered into evidence. Ogle's memorandum advised his attorney to argue that the prosecutor suborned perjury (Issue 3), neither he nor his counsel were present at the arraignment (Issue 4), the search warrant was obtained with false testimony (Issue 6), and the offense weapon was inadmissible (Issue 8). When construed liberally, see Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir.1998), Ogle's post-hearing brief reiterated that his counsel should have challenged the offense weapon as inadmissible (Issue 8) and the absence of Ogle at his arraignment (Issue 4). Ogle also questioned his appellate counsel extensively on her refusal to raise these issues. The district court erred when it determined that these arguments were procedurally defaulted. 20 Ogle failed to exhaust a single allegation of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The record does not establish that Ogle argued to the state habeas court that the trial court erred by not allowing Ogle to file his pro se memorandum or that his counsel was ineffective when she did not appeal this decision (Issue 7). At oral argument in this appeal, Ogle's appointed counsel admitted that Ogle waived this issue, and we appreciate her candor.