Robert Eldridge Jennison v. B.D. Goldsmith, Warden Attorney General of the State of Arizona

The question is whether petitioner Jenni-son exhausted state remedies, although he failed to present his claims to the Arizona Supreme Court, on the basis of that Court’s declarations in Arizona v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 , 684 P.2d 154, 157 (1984) and Arizona v. Sandon, 161 Ariz. 157 , 777 P.2d 220, 221 (1989) (en banc), that state remedies were exhausted without seeking review in the Arizona Supreme Court. The district court held he did not. We agree.

The Arizona Supreme Court held in Shat-tuck counsel need not petition the Court for review to satisfy the obligation imposed upon counsel by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), because, “[o]nce the defendant has been given the appeal to which he has a right, state remedies have been exhausted,” Shattuck, 684 P.2d at 157 (emphasis added), and review by the Arizona Supreme Court was entirely discretionary. The Court broadened this ruling in Sandon , holding a petitioner need not seek review by the Arizona Supreme Court to exhaust state remedies for purposes of federal ha-beas. Sandon, 777 P.2d at 221. The Court said “[n]ot only is this Court not ‘required to accept petitions for review in…