Doub BINFORD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William RHODE; Grant Woods, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees

In his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, Binford raised four claims. This order pertains to two of those claims, specifically that Bin-ford’s plea was unintelligent and his trial counsel ineffective. Binford raised these claims in a Rule 32 petition, but never petitioned the Arizona Court of Appeals for review after the claims were denied by the trial court. 1

We are uncertain whether state law now precludes Binford from fairly presenting these claims. If so, then absent cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice, federal review of these claims would be barred. See Coleman v.…