The opinion of the court was delivered by: DIANE M. WELSH
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Presently before the court is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a state prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 2, 1987, following a jury trial in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County, the petitioner was convicted of rape, burglary, corruption of a minor and terroristic threats. The petitioner was subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment of nine to twenty years. He is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution Rockview, located in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania.
Only violations of the federal constitution and laws are cognizable under § 2254. Thus, the petitioner's claim that he was denied his rights under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 1100 is not cognizable under § 2254. Wells v. Petsock, 941 F.2d 253, 256 (3d Cir. 1991).
Before a federal court may consider the merits of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner must have exhausted all of his available state remedies as to each of his claims relied upon for relief. § 2254(b); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 71 L. Ed. 2d 379, 102 S. Ct. 1198 (1982). In order to exhaust state remedies, the petitioner's claims must have been presented to the trial court, the state's intermediate appellate court and the state's highest court. Evans v. Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, 959 F.2d 1227, 1230 (3d. Cir. 1992). A claim will not be deemed exhausted if it is raised for the first time in the state's highest court on discretionary review. Id. (citing Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 103 L. Ed. 2d 380, 109 S. Ct. 1056 (1989)). The petitioner has the burden of establishing that exhaustion has been met. Gonce v. Redman, 780 F.2d 333, 336 (3d Cir. 1985); Brown v. Cuyler, 669 F.2d 155, 158 (3d Cir. 1982).
The petitioner traveled a circuitous path in presenting his claims to the state courts. After his conviction, trial counsel filed post-trial motions and was then permitted to withdraw as counsel. The petitioner was then appointed new counsel. New counsel filed supplemental post-trial motions, wherein he challenged the effectiveness of trial counsel's representation. After post-trial motions were denied, new counsel filed a timely notice of appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. After the trial judge filed his opinion explaining why he had denied post-trial motions, the Superior Court set a briefing schedule. New counsel failed to file a brief in support of the appeal and, on December 15, 1988, the Superior Court dismissed the appeal on that ground. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a pro se petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 9541 et seq. The petitioner was appointed a third attorney who filed a supplemental petition on his behalf. In the supplemental petition, third counsel sought to preserve the issues raised by the petitioner's two prior counsel and he raised several new grounds of ineffective assistance by trial counsel and second counsel. The PCRA court reinstated the petitioner's appellate rights and he was represented by his third attorney in his direct appeal to the Superior and Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania.
The petitioner raised his twelfth and thirteenth claims to the trial court, and in his direct appeal to the Superior Court and Supreme Courts. Thus, those two claims are exhausted. The record reveals that the petitioner raised his eleventh claim to the Superior Court and the Supreme Court and that he raised it in his PCRA petition. Thus, this claim is exhausted as well. Of the petitioner's remaining cognizable claims, he raised the first, third, fourth, and fifth in the trial court but he did not pursue them on appeal. Thus, those claims are not exhausted. In addition, the petitioner raised his second, sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth claims in his PCRA petition but did not pursue them on appeal. Thus, those claim as well are not exhausted.
Since the petitioner has presented many of his unexhausted claims to the trial court or the PCRA court but not in his direct appeal, I must determine whether, by failing to present his claims on direct appeal, the petitioner has committed a procedural default in the state courts. See Peoples v. Fulcomer, 882 F.2d 828, 830 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351, 103 L. Ed. 2d 380, 109 S. Ct. 1056 (1989)). The petitioner raised his first, third, fourth and fifth claims in the trial court but not in his appeal to the Superior and Supreme Courts. In the opinion denying the petitioner's post-trial motions, the trial judge held that although the petitioner had raised these claims in his post-trial motions, he abandoned them by failing to argue them before the trial judge. Commonwealth v. Harper, Bill Nos. 524-530 October Term 1986, slip op. at 1-2 (Common Pleas Ct. Sept. 15, 1988). In so holding, the trial court relied on the holding in Commonwealth v. Manigault, 501 Pa. 506, 462 A.2d 239 (Pa. 1983), that issues raised in post-trial motions but not briefed or argued are waived. Manigault, 462 A.2d at 241. The petitioner's failure to comply with the Manigault state procedural rule is an adequate and independent ground which would bar habeas relief. The trial judge's holding that the petitioner's claims were waived pursuant to Manigault was not disturbed by any appellate court because the petitioner did not raise the waived claims again. Thus, the petitioner committed a procedural default in the trial court and the claims he defaulted cannot be reviewed unless he can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law or demonstrate that the failure to review his claims would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 111 S. Ct. 2546, 2565, 115 L. Ed. 2d 640 (1991).
Here, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate adequate cause for his procedural default or actual prejudice. Nor would his claim fall within the "fundamental miscarriage of justice" exception because the petitioner does not raise a colorable claim of actual innocence. See Hull v. Freeman, 991 F.2d 86, 91 n.3 (3d Cir. 1993) (The fundamental miscarriage of justice exception to the procedural default rule is concerned with actual innocence.). Accordingly, his first, third, fourth and fifth claims may not be reviewed by reason of procedural default.
The petitioner raised his second, sixth, seventh, eighth and tenth claims in his PCRA petition but did not raise them in his appeal to the Superior and Supreme Courts. I must determine whether he has a remedy available to him under the PCRA. If he does, those claims are unexhausted; if he does not, those claims are exhausted. In making that determination, I am guided by the Third Circuit's opinion in Peoples v. Fulcomer.
Under the Post Conviction Relief Act a petitioner, . . . who has been convicted of a crime under Pennsylvania law and who is serving a sentence of imprisonment, may obtain relief if he pleads and proves that the conviction resulted from one or more of certain infringements on his rights, including a violation of the Constitution of the United States or ineffective assistance of counsel, providing that in the circumstances of the particular case, the truth-determining process was so undermined that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. 42 Pa. Cons. State Ann. § 9543(a)(2(i) and (ii). In addition, the petitioner must also establish that the allegation of error has not been previously litigated and, either has not been waived, or if waived, resulted in the conviction or affirmance of the conviction of an innocent individual, or does not constitute a state procedural default barring federal habeas corpus relief. ...