Court Opinion

ID: 2963714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:12.58912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:45.021652
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          October 31, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                             

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1422 

                                   EDWARD DIPIETRO,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                   WILLIAM COALTER,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                     ERRATA SHEET

            The opinion of  this court issued on  October 23, 1995 is  amended
        as follows:

            On  cover sheet,  change "[Hon.  Morris E.  Lasker,  U.S. District
                                                                 _____________
        Judge]" to "[Hon. Morris E. Lasker,* Senior U.S. District Judge].
        _____                                __________________________

            *Senior  U.S.  District  Judge,  of  the  District  of  New  York,
        Southern District, sitting by designation."

        October 23, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1422 

                                   EDWARD DIPIETRO,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                   WILLIAM COALTER,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Morris E. Lasker, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            William J.  Brown, Jr., and  Marasi, Franco  & Brown on  brief for
            ______________________       _______________________
        appellant.
            Scott  Harshbarger, Attorney General, Margaret C. Parks, Assistant
            __________________                    _________________
        Attorney General, and Gregory  I. Massing, Assistant Attorney General,
                              ___________________
        on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Petitioner Edward DiPietro, a Massachusetts
                 __________

            inmate, appeals from the dismissal of his habeas  petition as

            containing both  exhausted and  unexhausted claims.   For the

            following reasons, we vacate and remand.

                                          I.

                 On December 19, 1989,  DiPietro pled guilty in Middlesex

            Superior Court  to indictments charging him  with trafficking

            in  cocaine  and  possession  of  marijuana  with  intent  to

            distribute  it.  He was sentenced on  March 2, 1990 to a term

            of eighteen  to twenty years imprisonment,  with twelve years

            to serve.   Approximately two  years later, DiPietro  filed a

            motion for new trial.   This motion was denied,  and DiPietro

            unsuccessfully  appealed to the  Massachusetts Appeals Court.

            See Commonwealth  v. DiPietro, 624 N.E.2d 587 (Mass. App. Ct.
            ___ ____________     ________

            1993).  On March 1, 1994,  the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial

            Court (SJC) denied DiPietro's application for leave to obtain

            further  appellate  review  (ALOFAR).    See  Commonwealth v.
                                                     ___  ____________

            DiPietro, 631 N.E.2d 58 (Mass. 1994).  
            ________

                 DiPietro then  turned to  federal court.   On  April 15,

            1995, DiPietro filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.   2254

            alleging that  he was denied effective  assistance of counsel

            guaranteed by  the Sixth Amendment because  (a) trial counsel

            had misrepresented,  prior to DiPietro's guilty  plea, that a

            motion to  suppress evidence had  been filed and  denied; (b)

            counsel  had misinformed  him that pending  state legislation

            would deprive him of "good time" credits if he were convicted

            after  January 15, 1990; and  (c) counsel had  failed to file

            appropriate  pretrial motions  and was  generally unprepared.

            The Commonwealth moved to dismiss the petition  on the ground

            that the latter two claims, although raised in the motion for

            new trial  and before  the Massachusetts Appeals  Court, were

            not fairly  presented in  DiPietro's ALOFAR submitted  to the

            SJC.  The  district court concluded that  DiPietro had indeed

            failed  to present these two claims adequately to the SJC and

            dismissed the petition under Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510
                                         ____    _____

            (1982) (holding that a district court must dismiss a petition

            which contains any unexhausted claim).  

                                         II.

                 Under 28 U.S.C.   2254, a federal habeas petitioner must

            first "exhaust[] the remedies available in  the courts of the

            State."   See 28 U.S.C.    2254(b).  To do  so, the applicant
                      ___

            must   present  the   highest  state   court  with   a  "fair

            opportunity" to confront and correct the alleged error.  Mele
                                                                     ____

            v.  Fitchburg Dist. Court, 850 F.2d 817, 820 (1st Cir. 1988).
                _____________________

            In  Mele, we mapped the  contours of this  requirement in the
                ____

            context  of prevailing Massachusetts appellate practice.  The

                                         -4-

            petitioner in Mele had  raised a federal constitutional claim
                          ____

            before the  Massachusetts Appeals  Court but did  not mention

            the claim  in his ALOFAR.   We  held that "an  appealed issue

            cannot be  considered as having been fairly  presented to the

            SJC for  exhaustion purposes unless the  applicant has raised

            it within the four corners of the ALOFAR."  Id. at 823.  
                                                        ___

                 The  instant case  is  distinguishable from  Mele in  at
                                                              ____

            least  two respects.   First, DiPietro did  not entirely omit

            the  claims at  issue from  his ALOFAR, but  rather mentioned

            them  in  a  footnote   which  purported  to  incorporate  by

            reference  arguments  he made  in  his Massachusetts  Appeals

            Court brief.   Second, it  is undisputed that  after DiPietro

            filed  his  ALOFAR,  the  SJC requested  from  DiPietro,  and

            received, a copy of the  intermediate court briefs and record

            appendix.  Nonetheless, the district court concluded that the

            question whether  DiPietro  fairly presented  his second  and

            third  ineffective assistance  claims in  his ALOFAR  must be

            resolved  without reference  to his intermediate  court brief

            since no evidence exists that any justice of the SJC actually

            referred  to the brief.  The district court further concluded

            that these claims were not fairly presented within the ALOFAR

            itself.1  

                                
            ____________________

            1.  We agree with the district court that DiPietro's footnote
            presentation  of  his  second  and third  claims,  viewed  in
            isolation  from the  Appeals  Court brief,  is inadequate  to
            satisfy exhaustion concerns because  it fails to identify the
            factual  and  legal bases  of these  claims.   See  Scarpa v.
                                                           ___  ______

                                         -5-

                 We think that DiPietro did exhaust  his second and third

            ineffective assistance  claims.  Under the  SJC's practice as

            we  understand it,  the  decision to  grant  or deny  further

            appellate review ordinarily  is made solely  on the basis  of

            the ALOFAR itself.   Mele, 850 F.2d  at 822 (citing  Mass. R.
                                 ____

            App. P. 27(e)).  We have made it  plain that we do not expect

            the SJC "to scour the whole of the record below for potential

            error beyond  that  called to  the court's  attention by  the

            applicant."   Id.  Where,  as here, however,  the SJC departs
                          ___

            from  its  practice and  requests  to  see papers  previously

            filed,  these  papers are  properly  before  it.   DiPietro's

            ALOFAR  did alert  the SJC  to his  second and  third claims,

            which   were,  in   turn,   adequately   delineated  in   his

            intermediate court brief provided to the SJC.  Cf. Scarpa, 38
                                                           ___ ______

            F.3d at 6 (stating that where petitioner identified a federal

            basis for a claim in his motion for new trial,  he provided a

            backdrop against which his later  state court filings had  to

            be viewed).  Under  the circumstances, we are persuaded  that

            the SJC had a "fair opportunity" to address these claims.  We

            add that  the Commonwealth, having reconsidered  its position

            below, now urges us to find exhaustion.

                 Vacated and remanded.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                 _____________________  ___

                                
            ____________________

            Dubois,  38 F.3d 1, 6  (1st Cir. 1994),  cert. denied, 115 S.
            ______                                   ____________
            Ct. 940 (1995).

                                         -6-