James Anthony Price v. Warden, 701 F. App'x 748

Background

James Anthony Price, an Alabama prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance by trial and appellate counsel related to sentencing enhancements and trial procedure.
Price’s federal petition included seven claims: five against trial counsel (Claims One–Five) and two against appellate counsel (Claims Six–Seven).
The district court dismissed the § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, reasoning Price did not raise the ineffective-assistance claims in his rehearing application to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. A certificate of appealability was granted on exhaustion.
Price contended he presented Claims One–Six through a full round of Alabama appellate review: Rule 32 petition, appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, application for rehearing, and petition for certiorari to the Alabama Supreme Court. He conceded Claim Seven was not presented at the state appellate levels.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed exhaustion de novo and examined Alabama procedural rules (including Ala. R. App. P. 40(b) and Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.10) and precedent governing what constitutes one complete round of state appellate review.
The Court concluded Claims One–Six were exhausted because they were presented at each appellate level with supporting briefs, but Claim Seven was unexhausted and procedurally defaulted under Alabama rules.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Price exhausted Claims One–Six in state court before filing § 2254	Price: raised Claims One–Six in Rule 32, on appeal, and in certiorari petition; thus gave state courts a full opportunity to address them	State/District Court: Price failed to specifically renew all claims in his rehearing application to the Court of Criminal Appeals, so claims were unexhausted	Held: Claims One–Six exhausted — presenting claims at each appellate level with supporting briefs satisfied one complete round of state review; rehearing need not reiterate every claim
Whether Rule 40(b) required Price to include every claim in his rehearing application	Price: Rule 40 requires stating points the court overlooked; he complied by arguing the court erred in finding lack of evidentiary support and submitted exhibits	State: Rehearing should have specifically renewed each claim to preserve them	Held: Rule 40(b) does not compel repeating every claim; Price’s rehearing satisfied the rule’s particularity requirement for the points he raised
Whether Price had to present claims to the Alabama Supreme Court to exhaust	Price: he petitioned for certiorari to the Alabama Supreme Court after the Court of Criminal Appeals	State: Emphasizes procedural requirements but did not contest certiorari filing here	Held: Presenting claims through the full appellate sequence (appeal + rehearing + certiorari) satisfies O’Sullivan/Boerckel exhaustion rule for Alabama habeas appeals
Whether Claim Seven was exhausted or procedurally barred	Price: argued Claim Seven was raised in some state filings (he contended claims were presented)	State/District Court: Claim Seven was not raised before the Court of Criminal Appeals or Alabama Supreme Court; state rules would bar raising it in a second Rule 32	Held: Claim Seven not exhausted and would be procedurally barred in state court; federal dismissal as unexhausted on that claim is affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Green v. Nelson, 595 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard: exhaustion is mixed question reviewed de novo)
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (U.S. 1999) (state prisoner must present claims to state's highest court as part of ordinary appellate review)
Pruitt v. Jones, 348 F.3d 1355 (11th Cir. 2003) (Alabama Rule 32 complete round includes Court of Criminal Appeals and Alabama Supreme Court)
Dill v. Holt, 371 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2004) (Alabama rehearing and certiorari sequence described as full appellate round in parole context)
Gore v. Crews, 720 F.3d 811 (11th Cir. 2013) (procedural default and exhaustion principles under Alabama law)