Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/214

 546US1

Unit: $$U1

[09-04-08 13:15:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 546 U. S. 1 (2005)

3

Per Curiam

the Michigan Court of Appeals is not in the record, we have no way of determining exactly how he framed the issue in state court.” 111 Fed. Appx., at 364. As further support for its conclusion, the panel noted the Michigan Court of Ap­ peals’ decision analyzed the relevant claim only in terms of state law. The panel concluded, moreover, it would decline to address the claim even if Dye had properly raised it in state court because the federal habeas corpus petition’s alle­ gations were too vague and general to be considered fairly presented. Ibid. Stating that its previous opinion, Dye I, had disposed of any remaining claims, the Dye II panel va­ cated the prior judgment and afﬁrmed the District Court’s denial of the habeas corpus petition. Dye seeks review here. There are two errors in Dye II meriting reversal of the judgment. First, the Court of Appeals was incorrect in Dye II to conclude that, when seeking review in the state appellate court, petitioner failed to raise the federal claim based on prosecutorial misconduct. The Court of Appeals examined the opinion of the state appellate court and noted that it made no mention of a federal claim. That, however, is not dispositive. Failure of a state appellate court to mention a federal claim does not mean the claim was not presented to it. “It is too obvious to merit extended discussion that whether the exhaustion requirement. . . has been satisﬁed cannot turn upon whether a state appellate court chooses to ignore in its opinion a federal constitutional claim squarely raised in petitioner’s brief in the state court. . . .” Smith v. Digmon, 434 U. S. 332, 333 (1978) (per curiam). Contrary to the holding of the Court of Appeals, the Dis­ trict Court record contains the brief petitioner ﬁled in state court, and the brief sets out the federal claim. The fourth argument heading in his brief before the Michigan Court of Appeals states: “THE PROSECUTOR DENIED DEFENDANT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND A FAIR TRIAL BY NUMEROUS INSTANCES OF MISCON­