WPC @ O=LFa]=By214sQ݂ī1 ,~K=z!&[Mts1q lgIhlT,d LSV4J aN`"(j-PԤ%#L7OgI /ƿq-x7Zx Pnk +ИRcl]qz[e;}IݕB6!g1RUiHI\8 a })YN3Jʰ՜g`60t6(psٯ]T.4Tq^x J ?bmcPxAH% =䓄5>;t 0.e-1]CS!T7D8X&^=T 8WMV:b @)Ӌd"ەwl&y8gL ΋9sWG5U0<#qЗ#fUN/ %} 0YNw4 m 0U 0s 0V 0 0 0 0F 0 0 0; 0 0 0 01 0 0y 0 0 06 0 0 0v! 0 " 0" 0b# 0# 0$ 0% 0% 0& 0>D' 0' 0z( 0\) 0>* 0 + 0, 0, 0- 02p. 0. 0:/ 0Y/ 0_10 0 0 01 03 B*"5 D/L5 D+{5 05 D/7 07 068 08 0:9 0^!: 0<: 1e:U6 ;UY>V;U*; 1u; 723<be<m< 0D?????????? BE?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?^ b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b?b? 0n?HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$vOXXUSUS.,KL0:i+003|x U*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKF<6X9`(Courier NewKSG\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KF<6X9`(Courier NewKSG\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KF<6X9`(Courier NewKSG\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7;(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?H%2A`Arial?  SG\  `&Times New RomanS7<(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d:)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7>(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?H%2A`Arial?  SG\  `&Times New RomanS7<(X75+ ` hp x 5  :)2dxd0KS.SampleKF<6X9`(Courier NewKSG\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKF<6X9`(Courier NewKSG\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ii)- -   $XXUSUS.,    1    _ԀJusticeStevens,theloneReesedissenter,wouldhaveoverlookedthedefective  presentationofthatissue.Heconcludedthat,becausetherewas nosignificant  differencebetweenOregonandfederalineffectiveassistancestandards, thestatecourts  didhaveafairopportunitytoassess[Reeses]federalclaim.(Reese,supra,atp.1352  (dis._opn_.,Stevens,J.).)(#$  0   d0 (M(3 $ !XXUSUS.,      0   !XXUSUS.,  _ee   K8dd8 EXHAUSTIONPETITIONSFORREVIEWUNDERNEWRULE33.3   (  PreparedbyJ.BradleyOConnell 6 _FDAP_ԀStaffAttorney J Jan.2004 #(A#Ԁ {revisedMay2004}   ^    Introduction  ^    EffectiveJanuary1,2004,theJudicialCouncilhasadoptednewRule33.3,which \  createsanewformofSupremeCourt exhaustionpetitionforreview.ThepurposeofRule \  33.3istoallowan abbreviatedformofSupremeCourtpetition,wherethe solepurpose \  ofthefilingisto exhaust[]stateremediesbeforepresentingaclaimforfederalhabeascorpus \  relief,ratherthantoseekanactualhearinganddecisionofthecasebytheCaliforniaSupreme \  Court.(Rule33.3(a).)BothRule33.3andtherelevantprovisionsofthestandardpetitionfor \  reviewrules(Rules28&28.1)areattached. \   ThesematerialswillsummarizethekeyprovisionsofRule33.3andwillattemptto \ offerapreliminaryassessmentofthequestionofgreatestconcerntocriminalappellate \ counsel:DoesRule33.3deliveronitsgoalofallowingadefendanttoexhauststatereviewof \ hisfederalclaimsviaan abbreviatedpetition?Howwillan exhaustionpetitiondiffer \ fromaconventionalpetitionforreview?Mostimportantly,whatstepscancounseltaketo \ ensurethatthepetitionistrulyeffectiveforallaspectsofthedefendantsfederalclaims.?As \ theAdvisoryCommitteeCommentstates, Gpractitionersshouldconsultfederallawto \ determinewhetherthepetition'sstatementofthefactualandlegalbasesfortheclaimis \ sufficienttosatisfyfederalexhaustionrequirements. \   Ofcourse,thereisunlikelytobeanyNinthCircuitcaselawaddressingtheadequacy \ ofaCaliforniaRule33.3petitionforseveralyears.Inthemeantime,Californiaappellate \  counselwilllikelyadoptdivergentapproachestoRule33.3petitions,withsomefilingtruly \!  abbreviatedpetitionsandotherseschewingtheRule33.3formataltogetherinfavorof \" traditionalpetitionsforreview.Sincethisruleisnewanduntested,thesematerialswilloffer \# aconservativeassessmentofhowcounselmayemploytheRule33.3procedureandstillretain \$ confidencethatthepetitionsuccessfullyexhaustsalltheclaims.However,wealsoencourage \%  counseltoatleastconsiderandevaluateinanappropriatecasepossibleapproacheswhichare \&!! morestreamlinedthantheproceduresdescribedhere.Onlywhen#G#theNinthCircuitbeginsto \'"" ruleonRule33.3petitionswillweknowwithmorecertaintyjusthowabbreviatedapetition \(## canbeandstillensurefullexhaustion. \)$$   \+&& ЇExhaustionBasics     Necessityofpresentationtohigheststatecourtinwhichreview available.󀀀  Exhaustionofstateremediesordinarilyrequirespresentationofallfederalclaimstothehighest  statecourtinwhichreviewis available,evenif(asinCalifornia)statesupremecourtreview  isdiscretionary.(OSullivanv.Boerckel(1999)526U.S.838.)However,apetitiontothe   higheststatecourtmaybeunnecessaryifthatcourtexpresslyprovidesthatreviewisnot   availablewhereitsonlypurposeisexhaustionofstateremedies.(Swoopesv.Sublett(9thCir.   1999)196F.3d1008,10101011[construingArizonalaw].)     Exhaustionofbothlegalgroundsandfactualbases.Exhaustionrequires both thatthe   relevantapplicationexplicitlyidentifythefederalconstitutionalnatureoftheclaimandthat   itpresentthefactssupportingthatclaim.Thoserequirementshavetwopracticalimplications   foreffectiveexhaustionofclaimsinCaliforniaappeals:     First,itisessentialthatthepetitiontothehigheststatecourtrefertospecificfederal  constitutionalprovisionsand/orcitefederalcases.Referencestostatecasesalonewilllikely  beconsideredinsufficient,evenifthosestatecases,inturn,refertofederalconstitutional  principlesandcases.ArecentNinthCircuitenbancopinionconcludedthatapetitiontothe  OregonSupremeCourtwhichalleged inadequateassistanceofcounselandcitedonlyto  OregonauthoritiesmerelystatedaclaimundertheOregonConstitutionsrighttocounsel  provisionanddidnotexhaustaSixthAmendment/Stricklandineffectiveassistanceclaim.  (Petersonv.Lampert(9thCir.2003)319F.3d1153(enbanc).)    TheU.S.SupremeCourttookanevenmorestrictapproachinBaldwinv.Reese(2004)  541U.S.___,124_S.Ct_.1347.InReese,anotherOregonpetitionerhadusebothterms!  ineffectiveassistanceand inadequateassistanceinhispetitiontothestatesupremecourt.  ButtheU.S.SupremeCourtrejectedtheassertionthatthe ineffectiveassistance  nomenclaturewassufficienttoalertthestatecourttothefederalnatureoftheclaim. The   petitionprovidesnocitationofanycasethatmighthavealertedthecourttotheallegedfederal ! natureoftheclaim.(Id.atp.1351.)TheCourtwasnotconvincedthattheOregonstate " courtsused ineffectiveassistancetoreferexclusivelytoafederalconstitutionalclaim,rather # thantoasimilarstateclaim.(Id.atpp.13511352.) $    Reesesuggeststhatevenwhenthestatepetitionorbriefemployswellestablished &!" federaltermsofart!e.g., dueprocess, privilegeagainstselfincrimination,or(asinReese '"# itself) ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel!someexplicitreferencetotheU.S.Constitution (#$ and/orfederalcaselawisessential,toeliminateanyambiguitythattheclaimmayrestonly )$% ontheparallelstateconstitutionaldoctrine. *%&  +&'   TheReeseopiniondidleaveopenonepossibility.Themajoritydidnotdecidewhether  referencetoastatestandardthatwas,inallrespects,identicaltothefederalstandardmight  beconsidered adequatetopresentthecorrespondingfederalclaim.(Reese,supra,124_S.Ct_.  atp.1352.)ButtheCourtfoundReesehadwaivedthatargumentbynotpresentingitinthe  lowerfederalcourts._L M#  1      _򀀀IntheabsenceofanyholdingonthispointbyeithertheSupremeCourt  ortheNinthCircuit,itwouldbeverydangerousforcounseltoassumethatreferencesto   Californiaauthoritiesemployingthesamestandardasafederaldoctrinewillbesufficientto   exhaustthefederalclaim.     Inshort, Californiapractitionersshouldproceedontheassumptionthat references   to Pope, _Marsden_, 1368/competencyclaimsandthelikewilllikelynotbeenough   toexhaustthecorrespondingSixthAmendmentanddueprocessclaims .Astoeachsuch   claim,thepetitionshouldalsoexplicitlyindicateitsfederalbasisbycitationstoleadingfederal   authorities(e.g.,G_Strickland_#Gn$#v.Washington;Patev.Robinson;etc.)and/ortherelevantfederal   constitutionalprovision.InthewordsoftheSupremeCourt:  8  Alitigantwishingtoraiseafederalissuecaneasilyindicatethefederallawbasis  forhisclaiminastatecourtpetitionorbrief,forexample,bycitingin  conjunctionwiththeclaimthefederalsourceoflawonwhichhereliesoracase  decidingsuchaclaimonfederalgrounds,orbysimplylabelingtheclaim   federal.(Baldwinv.Reese,supra,124_S.Ct_.atp.1351.)!!   Second,evenwhenthelegalcharacteroftheclaimisexpressly federalized,amere  proformastatementofthatclaimtothestatesupremecourtisnotenough,byitself,toexhaust  thefactualbasisfortheclaim. Athoroughdescriptionoftheoperativefactsbeforethe  higheststatecourtisanecessaryprerequisitetosatisfactionofthe[exhaustion]standard....  (Kellyv.Small(9thCir.2003)315F.3d1063,1069,emphasisadded.)    Lowercourtopinioncantcuredefectivepresentationoffederalclaiminpetitionfor   review.󀀀Finally,initsrecentReeseopinion,theU.S.SupremeCourtruledoutthepossibility ! thatanexplicitdescriptionofthefederalnatureoftheclaiminthelowercourtopinioncould " cureafailuretomakethefederalbasisclearinthebodyofthepetitiontothestateshighest # court.(Baldwinv.Reese,supra,124_S.Ct_.1347,13501351.)Thefactthatastatehighcourt $  hasthe opportunitytoreviewthelowercourtopinionindecidingwhethertoexercise  discretionaryreviewdoesnotmeanthat theynecessarilydosoineverycase.(Id.atp.1350.)  Consequently,itremainsessentialthatthestatesupremecourtpetitionitselfexplicitlyframe  theclaimasafederalone.    Inviewoftherequirementthatthepetitionexhaustthefactualaswellasthelegalbasis   ofeachclaim(seeKellyv.Small,discussedabove),Reesealsoimpliesthatitmayberiskyfor   apetitionforreviewtorelytoomuchontheappellateopinionsexpositionofthefactual   circumstancessurroundingaclaim.Thatdoesnotmeanthatapetitionforreviewneedsafull   blownStatementofFactssummarizingtheentiretrial;indeed,inmostinstances,apetitionfor   reviewcanprobablydispensewithanyoverallsummaryoftrialevidence.But,puttingthe    factualexhaustionrequirementtogetherwithReesesrefusaltolooktothelowercourt   opinion,prudentappellatecounselshouldmakecertainthatthereviewpetitionitselfbriefly   statesthefactssupportingeachclaim.(Forexample,onaconfrontationclaimconcerning   restrictionsoncrossexaminationofawitness,thepetitionshouldgobeyondgeneralized  assertionsandshouldidentifytheparticularlinesofinquirywhichthecourtforeclosed.)   ImplicationsforRule33.3ExhaustionPetitions     Atleastinthisauthorsopinion,Rule33.3appearstodomuchlesstoreducelengthof  an exhaustionpetitionforreviewandtheworknecessarytoprepareitthanthedraftersof  therulemayhavehoped.TheonlyconventionalpetitionforreviewrequirementsthatRule  33.3plainlyeliminatesare _compl[iance_]withrule28.1(b)(1)(2).(SeeRule33.3(b)(3).)  ThosearethesubdivisionsrequiringaQuestionsPresentedsection( aconcise  G_nonargumentative_Ԁstatementoftheissuespresentedforreview#G5#,etc.(Rule28.1(b)(1))anda  discussionaddressingwhytheissuesareworthyofSupremeCourtreview(G Thepetitionmust  explainhowthecasepresentsagroundforreviewunderrule28(b)#G7#(Rule28.1(b)(2)).Tobe  sure,theeliminationofthelatterrequirementwillsavesometime.Itwillnolongerbe  necessarytodraftnewtextaddressingthebroaderimportanceoftheissuesorotherwise   attemptingtofitthemwithinthecriteriaforSupremeCourtreview( tosecureuniformityof ! decisionortosettleanimportantquestionoflaw(Rule28(b)(1))!whichisoftenafutiletask " wherethecasedoesnotinvolveanysplitofauthorityorbroadunresolvedquestionbutsimply # amistakenapplicationofagoverningstandardtothecasesfacts.However,eventhistime $  savingsmaybesomewhatillusorybecause,inpractice,manypetitionsfiledforexhaustion % ! purposesundertheoldrulesdonotincludeanysignificantnewtextonthereviewworthiness &!" ofacasebutonlyaproformarecitation.Thenewrulealsodoesallowforaverytruncated '"# StatementoftheCase( Gabriefstatementoftheunderlyingproceedings,includingthenature (#$ oftheconvictionandthepunishmentimposed#G<#(Rule33.3(b)(3)(B)),butthistooislargely )$% consistentwithcurrentpracticeundertheoldrules.Finally,fewernumbersoffilingcopies *%& arenecessary!anoriginalplus8copiesforaRule33.3exhaustionpetition,ratherthanthe +&' originalplus13neededforaconventionalpetitionforreview.    Themorecrucialquestionistheextenttowhichthepetitionmustsetoutandarguethe  substanceoftheclaims.Thenewrulerequires Gabriefstatementofthefactualandlegal  basesoftheclaim#G?#.(Rule33.3(b)(3)(C).)ButtheAdvisoryCommitteeCommentalso  correctlycautionsthat Gpractitionersshouldconsultfederallawtodeterminewhetherthe   petition'sstatementofthefactualandlegalbasesfortheclaimissufficientforthatpurpose.   ЀTakentogether,theRuleandtheCommentbegthekeyquestionofhow briefthe statement   ofthefactualandlegalbasescanbeandstillsatisfy#G @#thefederalcaselawsrequirementof a   thoroughdescriptionoftheoperativefactsbeforethehigheststatecourt(Kellyv.Small,   supra,315F.3datp.1069.)     Onethingisclear.Itwillnotbeenoughtoprovideasuperabbreviateddescriptionof   aclaimandtoincorporatebyreferenceorotherwisereferthereadertotheCourtofAppeal   briefsforamorecompletedescription.Theruleexpresslyprovidesthat [G_e]xcept_Ԁasprovided  in[Rule33.3(b)(3)],thepetitionmustcomplywithrule28.1.#GD#(Rule33.3(b)(2).)Among  otherthings,rule28.1providesthat [_n]o_Ԁincorporationbyreferenceispermittedexcepta  referencetoanotherSupremeCourtreviewpetitionoranswer(Rule28.1(e)(2))!i.e.,therule  foraconventionalpetitionforreviewplainlydoesnotallowanincorporationbyreferenceof  apartysCourtofAppealbriefs.IncontrasttotheRule33.3'sexpressexemptionfromthe  usualRule28.1requirementsofQuestionsPresentedandReasonsforGrantingReview  sections(Rule33.3(b)(3)referencingRule28.1(b)(1)(2)),thenewrulecontainsno  comparableexemptionfromtheRule28.1subdivisionbarringincorporationbyreference.  Consequently,thataspectofRule28.1appliesequallytoaRule33.3exhaustionpetition.In  lightoftheCaliforniaRulesprohibitiononincorporationbyreferenceinaconventional  petitionforreview,theNinthCircuithassquarelyheldthatafederalcourtcannotlooktoa  defendantsCourtofAppealbrieftocureadefectinthepresentationofaclaimintheSupreme  Courtpetitionforreview.(_Gatlin_Ԁv.Madding(9thCir.1999)189F.3d882,888889;seealso  Kellyv.Small,supra,315F.3datp.1069&fn.3.)Becausethatprohibitioncarriesoverto   Rule33.3,thesameistrueofan exhaustionpetitionunderthenewrule.TheSupremeCourt ! petitionitselfmustcontainanadequatedescriptionofthefactualandlegalbasesofeachclaim. "   Insummary,thenewruledoeseliminateanyneedfornewtexton reviewworthiness. $  But(notwithstandingthenominalpurposeofan abbreviatedpetition)itcouldbedangerous %!! to abbreviatetoomuchthedescriptionofthesubstanceoftheclaims,fordoingsocould &"" inadvertentlyforfeitfederalpreservationofsomeofthe basesoftheclaims(e.g.,thebreadth '## oftheclaimastowhichexcludedjurors,whichcrossexaminationsubjectsorprosecutorial ($$ statements,orotherparticularfactshelpfultoaclaim). )%%   +'' SomeCautiousSuggestions     Sowhatistobedone?Thoughexperiencedappellatepractitionersmaycomeupwith  differentsolutionstotheRule33.3dilemma,weofferthefollowingcautioussuggestions.  AssumingthattheCourtofAppealbriefexplicitly federalizedeachclaimandadequately  setoutitsfactualandlegalbases(asrequiredby_Castille_Ԁv.Peoples(1989)489U.S.346), the   safestcourseistocutandpastetheopeningbriefargumentsintothebodyofthepetition   forreview .Inthepast,thishassometimesbeenviewedasthe lazyapproachtoapetition   forreviewbecausesuchrecycledargumentsdonotexplicitlyaddresstheCourtofAppeals   discussionoftheissuesnordotheymakethecaseforwhytheSupremeCourtshouldhearand    decidetheissues.Butsincethe_AOB_Ԁusuallyrepresentsthemost thorough(Kellyv.Small,   supra,315F.3datp.1069)presentationofeachargumentwrittenoverthecourseofthecase,   reiterationofthatsamethoroughargumentintheSupremeCourtpetitionmaybethesafest   (aswellasthequickestandmostefficient)meansofensuringfullexhaustionofthebasesof   eachclaim.    Ofcourse,inmultiargumentcases,itmaybeimpossibletoreprintthefull_AOB_  argumentsforeachclaimwhilestillstayingwiththepetitionforreviewwordcountlimitof  8400words.Inthatsituation,sometrimmingandothereditingoftheargumentswill  obviouslybenecessary.Butwheretocut?Inviewoftheexhaustionprinciplessummarized  earlier,counselshouldbecarefultoretaintheportionslayingoutthefactsandprocedural  circumstancesunderlyingeachclaim.And,ofcourse,thepetitionmustalsoframethelegal  argumentwithexpressreferencetofederalconstitutionalprovisionsandcaselaw.But,since  theprimefunctionofanexhaustionpetitionistostatethefederalconstitutionalclaimsand  theirbases(muchlikeapleading),ratherthantopersuadethereader,itshouldbepossibleto  deletethemore rhetoricalpassagesfromtheoriginal_AOB_Ԁargument.Also,inmany  instances,itmaybeadequatetostateaproposition(e.g., thedenialofcrossexaminationon  probationstatusviolatedtheconfrontationclause)andtocitesupportingauthorities(e.g.,  Davisv.Alaska,etc.)buttoomitanydetaileddescriptionofthefactsandanalysisofthecited   cases. !   Finally,ofcourse,counselmustalsodecidewhichkindofpetitiontofile!aRule33.3 # exhaustionpetitionoraconventionalRule28.1petitionaffirmativelyseekingahearingbefore $  theCaliforniaSupremeCourt.Obviously,inmanycases,therewillbetacticalreasonsfor %!! filingaconventionalpetitionundertheoldrule!suchaswherethemostpromisingissueis &"" reallyastatelawclaim.Also,bearinmindthatsomefederalconstitutionalclaimsdependon '## afavorableresolutionofastatelawissueanddisappearifthestateappellateopinionrejects ($$ thestatelawpremise.(Forexample,afederalconstitutionalclaimthattheinstructions )%% misstatedthespecificintentelementofanoffensemayfounderifthestateappellateopinion *&& saysthatitsageneralintentcrimeinthefirstplace.)Also,mererecyclingof_AOB_Ԁarguments +'' _willbeinsufficientiftheappellateopinionitselfgivesrisetoadifferenttypeofconstitutional  claimthanarguedintheappellatebriefing.(Forexample,iftheappellateopinionrejectsprior  statelawontheelementsofanoffenseortheavailabilityofaparticulardefense,theopinion  mayrepresentanunforeseeable judicialenlargementofcriminalliability!whichwouldbe  adifferenttypeofdueprocessclaimthaninitiallypresentedintheAOB.)    Finally,thereisnoexplicitprovisionintherulesforahybridpetitionwhichactively   seeksaSupremeCourthearingononereviewworthyissuebutassertsotherclaimsfor   exhaustionpurposesonly.Consequently,inthoseinstances,counselwillhavetofilea   conventionalpetitionforreviewunderRules28and28.1(withaconventionalcaptionandthe   fullnumberofcopies).(However,thepetitioncouldstillfollowtheguidelinesaboveinits   actualpresentationoftheexhaustionarguments.)     FinalThoughts      Thereareatleasttwokindsofrevisionsofpetitionforreviewproceduresthat,if  adopted,couldhaveverysignificantlyreducedtheattorneytimeandjudicialresources  associatedwithSupremeCourtpetitionsfiledsolelyforexhaustionpurposes.Firstandmost  dramatically,CaliforniacouldhaveadoptedtheapproachofArizonaandsomeotherstatesand  explicitlyprovidedthatCaliforniaSupremeCourtreviewisnotavailable.(SeeSwoopesv.  Sublett,supra,196F.3d1008.)Sucharulewouldhaveeliminatedtheneedtofileany  petitionforreview(evenan abbreviatedone)intheCaliforniaSupremeCourtinorderto  exhauststateremedies.ButtheCaliforniaJudicialCouncilhassquarelyrejectedthatapproach  byitsadoptionofRule33.3.Thus,intheabsenceofanyrulerenderingSupremeCourt  reviewunavailable,Californiaappealsremainsubjecttotheusualrequirementofapetitionto  thestateshighestcourt.    Alternatively,Californiacouldhaveadoptedanintermediateapproachwhichwould  havestillentailedanexhaustionfilingintheCaliforniaSupremeCourtbutwouldhavetruly   allowedan abbreviateddocumenttodothejob. Therulecouldhaveexplicitlyallowedan ! exhaustionpetitiontoincorporateportionsoftheCourtofAppealbriefingbyreference; " therulecouldfurtherhavestatedthat,inpassingontheexhaustionpetition,theSupreme # Courtwillbedeemedtohavereadconsideredanysuchincorporatedportionsofthe $  appellate briefs . 򀀀 Arulealongthoselinescouldhaveallowedaverybriefdocumentto % ! completetheexhaustionprocess!perhapsevena12pageletterstatingthefederalclaimsand &"" referencingtherelevantsectionsoftheCourtofAppealbrief.ButRule33.3plainlydoesnot '## allowforanysuchstreamlinedprocess;asdiscussedabove,aswithaconventionalpetitionfor ($$ review,therulesprohibitanysuchincorporationbyreferenceinanexhaustionpetition. )%%   Intheyearsahead,wewillnodoubtseeNinthCircuitopinionspassingontheadequacy +'' ofRule33.3petitionstoexhaustparticularclaims,anditisconceivablethatthoseopinions  willconstruesuchpetitionsmoreliberallythanconventionalones.Itisalsopossiblethat  CaliforniawilltinkerfurtherwithRule33.3orotheraspectsofthepetitionforreviewrules.  However,inthemeantime,thecautiousapproachoutlinedaboveseemsthesafestbestfor  ensuringthatanexhaustionpetitionadequatelyfulfillsitsfunctionofpreservingallaspectsof  adefendantsfederalclaims.       APPENDIX!NewRule33.3andRelevantPortionsofRules28&28.1   'qSQ S   E(03I?+ ` hp x X? GGXXGRule33.3.Petitionforreviewtoexhauststateremedies#GXGXr#Gb G#b  Gbr#Gb  b Q  S@#G Gb0s##Grs# GGXXG(a)Purpose#GXGX&t#Gb G#b  Gbt#Gb  b     #G Gbst##Gt#GGXXGAfterdecisionbytheCourtofAppealinacriminalcase,adefendantmayfileanabbreviatedpetition " forreviewintheSupremeCourtforthesolepurposeofexhaustingstateremediesbeforepresenting   aclaimforfederalhabeascorpusrelief.   #GXGX]u#Gb G#b  Gb>u#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  S<  9&1w  #G Gbv##Gw#GGXXG(b)Formandcontents#GXGX5x#Gb G#b  Gbx#Gb  b&1ww݌ <  Ќ XX   & ?+ ` hp x X?  S  { &Uy  #G Gbx##Gx#GGXXG(1)Thewords"PetitionforReviewtoExhaustStateRemedies"mustappearprominentlyonthecover    ofthepetition.&Uyy݌   Ќ XX   #GXGXVz#Gb G#b  Gb7z#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  SL I &{  #G Gb{##G{#GGXXG(2)Exceptasprovidedin(3),thepetitionmustcomplywithrule28.1.&{b|݌ L  Ќ XX   #GXGX|#Gb G#b  Gb|#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  S.  &5~  #G Gb}##G~#GGXXG(3)Thepetitionneednotcomplywithrule28.1(b)(1)#GXGX6#GXXG(2)butmustinclude:&5~~݌ .  Ќ XX   #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  Spm&ˀ  #G Gbj##G#GGXXG(A)astatementthatthecasepresentsnogroundsforreviewunderrule28(b)andthepetitionisfiled p  solelytoexhauststateremediesforfederalhabeascorpuspurposes;&ˀH݌ \  Ќ XX   #GXGX́#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  S>&  #G Gb3##Gu#GGXXG(B)abriefstatementoftheunderlyingproceedings,includingthenatureoftheconvictionandthe >  punishmentimposed;and&݌ * Ќ XX   #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gbv#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  Sli&,  #G Gb˅##G #GGXXG(C)abriefstatementofthefactualandlegalbasesoftheclaim.&,݌ l Ќ XX   #GXGX-#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  SN&w  #G Gb##GX#GGXXG(c)Service#GXGX{#Gb G#b  Gb\#Gb  b&w݌ N Ќ XX   & ?+ ` hp x X?  S=&  #G Gbȉ##G #GGXXGThepetitionmustbeservedontheCourtofAppealclerkbutneednotbeservedonthesuperiorcourt  clerk.&݌ | Ќ XX   #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gbs#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  S^ &  #G Gb##G#GGXXGRule33.3adoptedeffectiveJanuary1,2004.#GXGX#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b&݌ ^ Ќ XX     & ?+ ` hp x X?  SM&a  #G Gb##GΎ#GGXXGAdvisoryCommitteeComment(2004)#GXGXe#Gb G#b  GbF#Gb  b&aޏ݌  Ќ XX     & ?+ ` hp x X?  S2! /&  #G GbȐ##G #GGXXGSubdivision(b).Althoughapetitionunderthisrulemuststatethat"thecasepresentsnogrounds 2! forreviewunderrule28(b)"(rule33.3(b)(3)(A)),thisdoesnotmeantheSupremeCourtcannot "n orderreviewifitdeterminesthecasewarrantsit.Thelistofgroundsforgrantingreviewinrule  #Z 28(b)isnotintendedtobeexclusive,andfromtimetotimetheSupremeCourthasexercisedits #F discretiontoorderreviewinacasethatdoesnotpresentoneofthelistedgrounds.(CompareU.S. $2  SupremeCourtRule10[thelistedgroundsforgrantingcertiorari,"althoughneithercontrollingnor %! fullymeasuringtheCourt'sdiscretion,indicatethecharacterofthereasonstheCourtconsiders"].)&݌ & " Ќ XX   #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  SL(#'I#&Ӗ  #G Gbr##G#GGXXGRule33.3(b)(3)(C)requiresthepetitiontoincludeastatementofthefactualandlegalbasesofthe L(# claim.Thisshowingisrequiredbyfederallaw:"forpurposesofexhaustingstateremedies,aclaim 8)$ forrelief[instatecourt]...mustincludereferencetoaspecificfederalconstitutionalguarantee,as $*t% wellasastatementofthefactsthatentitlethepetitionertorelief."(#GXGXԗ##G#GGXXGGrayv.Netherland#GXGX##G#GGXXGԀ(1996)518 +`& U.S.152,162#GXGX#GXXG163,citingPicardv.Connor(1971)404U.S.270.)Thefederalcourtswilldecide +L'  whetherapetitionfiledincompliancewiththisrulesatisfiesfederalexhaustionrequirements,and  practitionersshouldconsultfederallawtodeterminewhetherthepetition'sstatementofthefactual  andlegalbasesfortheclaimissufficientforthatpurpose.&ӖP݌  Ќ XX     Ӏ***  ;SY  V#GXGX ##G#?+ ` hp x X? GGXXGRule28.Petitionforreview#GXGX,#Gb G#b  Gb #Gb  b Y   S ; #G Gb##G͞# GGXXG{(a)omitted} #GXGX##Gb#b Gb  b  ; S} * z #G Gb##G#GGXXG(b)Groundsforreview#GXGX̠#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b }   & ?+ ` hp x X?  S_ &  #G Gb%##Gg#GGXXGTheSupremeCourtmayorderreviewofaCourtofAppealdecision:&݌ _  Ќ XX   #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  S N &  #G Gb##Gɣ#GGXXG(1)whennecessarytosecureuniformityofdecisionortosettleanimportantquestionoflaw;&e݌   Ќ XX   #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gbʤ#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  S3 0 &O  #G Gb##G0#GGXXG(2)whentheCourtofAppeallackedjurisdiction;&O̦݌ 3  Ќ XX   #GXGXP#Gb G#b  Gb1#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  Sr &  #G Gb(##Gj#GGXXG(3)whentheCourtofAppealdecisionlackedtheconcurrenceofsufficientqualifiedjustices;or&݌   Ќ XX   #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gbk#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  SWT&  #G Gb##GԪ#GGXXG(4)forthepurposeoftransferringthemattertotheCourtofAppealforsuchproceedingsasthe W  SupremeCourtmayorder.&p݌ C  Ќ XX   #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gbի#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  S%&  #G Gb)##Gk#GGXXG(c)Limitsofreview#GXGX#Gb G#b  Gbo#Gb  b&݌ %  Ќ XX   & ?+ ` hp x X?  Sgd&  #G Gb##G'#GGXXG(1)Asapolicymatter,onpetitionforreviewtheSupremeCourtnormallywillnotconsideran g issuethatthepetitionerfailedtotimelyraiseintheCourtofAppeal.&+݌ S Ќ XX   #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  S5&r  #G Gb##GS#GGXXG(2)ApartymaypetitionforreviewwithoutpetitioningforrehearingintheCourtofAppeal,butas 5 apolicymattertheSupremeCourtnormallywillaccepttheCourtofAppealopinion'sstatementof ! theissuesandfactsunlessthepartyhascalledtheCourtofAppeal'sattentiontoanyalleged   omissionormisstatementofanissueorfactinapetitionforrehearing.&r݌  Ќ XX   #GXGXs#Gb G#b  GbT#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  S;8&(  #G Gbǵ##G #GGXXG(d)Petitionsinnonconsolidatedproceedings#GXGX,#Gb G#b  Gb #Gb  b&(݌ ; Ќ XX   & ?+ ` hp x X?  S z &c  #G Gb##Gܷ#GGXXGIftheCourtofAppealdecidesanappealanddeniesarelatedpetitionforwritofhabeascorpus   withoutissuinganordertoshowcauseandwithoutformallyconsolidatingthetwoproceedings,a !  partyseekingreviewofbothdecisionsmustfileaseparatepetitionforreviewineachproceeding.&c݌ " Ќ XX   #GXGXd#Gb G#b  GbE#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  S7$#4&  #G GbY##G#GGXXG{(e)(g)&AdvisoryCommiteeCommenttoRule28omitted}#GXGX##G# XXGXXXX&7݌ 7$ Ќ XX     *** v%  S'X"&"#GXGX`##G#?+ ` hp x X? GGXXGRule28.1.Formandcontentsofpetition,answer,andreply#GXGX#Gb G#b  GbԾ#Gb  b 'X" #G Gbq##G#GGXXG(a)Ingeneral#GXGXL#Gb G#b  Gb-#Gb  b G(#  & ?+ ` hp x X?  S))%)$&  #G Gb##G#GGXXGExceptasprovidedinthisrule,apetitionforreview,answer,andreplymustcomplywiththe ))%  relevantprovisionsofrule14.&݌ *& Ќ XX   #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  SS&  #G GbY##G#GGXXG(b)Contentsofapetition#GXGX#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b&7݌ S   XX   & ?+ ` hp x X?  SB&  #G Gb##G\#GGXXG(1)Thebodyofthepetitionmustbeginwithaconcise,nonargumentativestatementoftheissues  presentedforreview,framingthemintermsofthefactsofthecasebutwithoutunnecessarydetail.&j݌  Ќ XX   #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  S c&  #G Gbo##G#GGXXG(2)Thepetitionmustexplainhowthecasepresentsagroundforreviewunderrule28(b).&M݌  c Ќ XX   #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  S R &2  #G Gb##G#GGXXG(3)IfapetitionforrehearingcouldhavebeenfiledintheCourtofAppeal,thepetitionforreview   muststatewhetheritwasfiledand,ifso,howthecourtruled.&2݌   Ќ XX   #GXGX3#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  S# s &  #G Gb##G#GGXXG(4)IfthepetitionseeksreviewofaCourtofAppealopinion,acopyoftheopinionshowingits # s filingdateandacopyofanyordermodifyingtheopinionordirectingitspublicationmustbe _  boundatthebackoftheoriginalpetitionandeachcopyfiledintheSupremeCourt.&r݌ K  Ќ XX   #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  S : &:  #G Gb##G#GGXXG(5)Thetitleofthecaseanddesignationofthepartiesonthecoverofthepetitionmustbeidentical   tothetitleanddesignationintheCourtofAppealopinionororderthatisthesubjectofthe y  petition.&:݌ e  Ќ XX   #GXGX;#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  SG&<  #G Gb##G#GGXXG(6)Rule33.3governstheformandcontentofapetitionforreviewfiledbythedefendantina G  criminalcaseforthesolepurposeofexhaustingstateremediesbeforeseekingfederalhabeas 3  corpusreview.&<݌  Ќ XX   #GXGX=#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  Sa^&9  #G Gb##G#GGXXG(Subd(b)amendedeffectiveJanuary1,2004.)#GXGX=#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b&9݌ a Ќ XX   & ?+ ` hp x X?  SC&u  #G Gb##G#GGXXG(c)Contentsofananswer#GXGXy#Gb G#b  GbZ#Gb  b&u݌ C Ќ XX   & ?+ ` hp x X?  S2&  #G Gb##G#GGXXGAnanswerthatraisesadditionalissuesforreviewmustcontainaconcise,nonargumentative  statementofthoseissues,framingthemintermsofthefactsofthecasebutwithoutunnecessary q detail.&݌ ] Ќ XX   #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  S?&  #G Gb2##Gt#GGXXG(d)Length#GXGX#Gb G#b  Gbx#Gb  b&݌ ? Ќ XX   & ?+ ` hp x X?  S.~&  #G Gb##G&#GGXXG(1)Ifproducedonacomputer,apetitionoranswermustnotexceed8,400wordsandareplymust  notexceed4,200words.Suchapetition,answer,orreplymustincludeacertificatebyappellate m  counseloranunrepresentedpartystatingthenumberofwordsinthedocument.Theperson Y! certifyingmayrelyonthewordcountofthecomputerprogramusedtopreparethedocument.&*݌ E" Ќ XX   #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  S#'#&j  #G Gb ##GK#GGXXG(2)Iftypewritten,apetitionoranswermustnotexceed30pagesandareplymustnotexceed15 #' pages.&j݌ $  Ќ XX   #GXGXk#Gb G#b  GbL#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  SU&!&R!&  #G Gb##G#GGXXG(3)Thetables,theCourtofAppealopinion,acertificateunder(1),andanyattachmentunder(f)(1) U&! areexcludedfromthelimitsstatedin(1)and(2).&k݌ A'" Ќ XX   #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  S(#$(#&  #G GbC##G#GGXXG(4)Onapplicationandforgoodcause,theChiefJusticemaypermitalongerpetition,answer, (#$ reply,orattachment.&!݌ )% Ќ XX   #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  SQ+&*N&&5  #G Gb##G#GGXXG(Subd(d)reletteredeffectiveJanuary1,2004;adoptedassubd(e)effectiveJanuary1,2003.)#GXGX9#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b&5݌ Q+& Ќ XX   & ?+ ` hp x X?  SS&  #G Gb##G#GGXXG(e)Attachmentsandincorporationbyreference#GXGX#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ݌ S Ќ XX   & ?+ ` hp x X?  SB&  #G Gb##GY#GGXXG(1)Noattachmentsarepermittedexceptanopinionororderfromwhichthepartyseeksreliefand  exhibitsorordersofatrialcourtorCourtofAppealthatthepartyconsidersunusuallysignificant  anddonotexceedatotalof10pages.&]݌ m Ќ XX   #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  S O &  #G Gb##G#GGXXG(2)Noincorporationbyreferenceispermittedexceptareferencetoapetition,ananswer,orareply  O filedbyanotherpartyinthesamecaseorfiledinacasethatraisesthesameorsimilarissuesandin  ; whichapetitionforreviewispendingorhasbeengranted.&}݌  ' Ќ XX   #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b& ?+ ` hp x X?  Si  f&=  #G Gb##G#GGXXG(Subd(e)reletteredeffectiveJanuary1,2004;adoptedassubd(f)effectiveJanuary1,2003.)#GXGXA#Gb G#b  Gb"#Gb  b&=݌ i  Ќ XX   & ?+ ` hp x X?  SK  &  #G Gb##G$#GGXXGRule28.1amendedeffectiveJanuary1,2004;adoptedeffectiveJanuary1,2003.&(݌ K  Ќ XX   {AdvisoryCommitteeCommenttoRule28.1omitted} #GXGX#Gb G#b  Gb#Gb  b :   S#b  Gb$## b#XXGXXXX#GXGX##G#