Baldwin v. Reese
Following the affirmance of his criminal conviction and sentence in Oregon state court, Michael Reese filed a pro-se petition for habeas corpus in state court. He was appointed an attorney, who filed an amended habeas petition claiming that Reese's attorney on his direct appeal had been ineffective under the federal constitution. When this claim was denied, Reese appealed and was appointed another attorney, who mistakenly submitted Reese's pro-se petition, which did not mention Reese's federal constitutional claims. The court of appeals dismissed his appeal and the Oregon supreme court denied review. Reese then turned to federal court, where he filed a habeas petition claiming that the attorney on his direct appeal was ineffective. The federal district court found that Reese had not exhausted his state court remedies because he had not presented federal claims to the state courts. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Reese alerted the state court of appeals and supreme court of his claims under the federal constitution, and therefore had exhausted his state court remedies.
Question Presented:
For the purposes of exhausting all available state court remedies to seek federal habeas corpus relief, does a state prisoner alert the states highest court that he is raising a federal claim when,
in that court, he neither cites a specific provision of the federal constitution nor cites at least one authority that has decided the claim on a federal basis?
