“[The petitioner’s] failure to exhaust his claim resulted in a procedural default because ‘it is apparent that the Florida courts would now refuse to hear this claim[.]’” (quoting Smith v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 572 F.3d 1327, 1342 (11th Cir. 2009)
How later courts described this case
- “[The petitioner’s] failure to exhaust his claim resulted in a procedural default because ‘it is apparent that the Florida courts would now refuse to hear this claim[.]’” (quoting Smith v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 572 F.3d 1327, 1342 (11th Cir. 2009)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MARTIN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I agree in the Majority’s determination that Mr. Ivy’s Confrontation Clause Claim was not exhausted and is now procedurally defaulted. Further, I agree with the Majority’s conclusion that Mr. Ivy has not argued, or attempted to show, cause and prejudice or a miscarriage of justice to excuse his procedural default. Because Mr. Ivy’s unexcused procedural default is sufficient to deny Mr. Ivy’s federal habeas petition, I would affirm the District Court’s denial of the habeas petition on this basis alone.