Opinion ID: 78361
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Jeremy Smith

Text: Lamarca claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of undisclosed consideration Smith received for his testimony. Lamarca contends his counsel's failure to discover Smith's misdemeanor retail theft conviction meant the jury was deprived of information surrounding the State's alleged assistance to Smith. He argues the district court erred when it narrowly examined this claim as simply a failure to impeach Smith with a misdemeanor conviction. The district court made two conclusions with respect to Lamarca's claim that his counsel failed to effectively impeach Smith. First, the district court concluded the state courts cited the prevailing law ( Strickland ) and applied that law to the facts of the case in a reasonable manner in determining Lamarca's counsel was not ineffective for failing to impeach Smith using the prior misdemeanor conviction. Second, the district court concluded the claim, to the extent it was based on the failure of Lamarca's counsel to uncover and present undisclosed consideration Smith received from the State, was procedurally defaulted because the claim was not presented in state court and litigated as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. [5] Only the second conclusion is pertinent to our resolution of Lamarca's application for a COA because, in his application, Lamarca has not argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach Smith with the misdemeanor conviction itself. The habeas statute requires petitioners to exhaust all available state law remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). A petitioner must alert state courts to any federal claims to allow the state courts an opportunity to review and correct the claimed violations of his federal rights. Jimenez v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 481 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir.2007). Thus, to exhaust state remedies fully the petitioner must make the state court aware that the claims asserted present federal constitutional issues. Snowden v. Singletary, 135 F.3d 732, 735 (11th Cir.1998). The only ineffective assistance of counsel claim with respect to Smith that Lamarca raised in state court alleged his counsel failed to effectively cross-examine Smith with prior convictions involving crimes of dishonesty. Although Lamarca did present a claim regarding Smith's alleged undisclosed consideration from the State, this claim asserted Brady and Giglio violations by the Statenot ineffectiveness by Lamarca's counsel. In his application for a COA, Lamarca does not address the district court's conclusion that this portion of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim was procedurally barred because it was not exhausted in state court. He thus has failed to show jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, 120 S.Ct. at 1604. We decline to issue a COA with respect to this issue.