Bowers

MEMORANDUM **

1. The claims discussed in the petition to the Oregon Supreme Court, read in context of the state court proceedings and petitioner’s briefing therein, were fairly presented. See, e.g., Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1066-68 (9th Cir.2003). The following claims were thus properly exhausted: (1) ineffective assistance, based on: (a) “counsel’s failure to timely object to the imposition of a wrongful sentence”; (b) “the statement of petitioner’s attorney to petitioner that he would not represent petitioner unless he waived his right to a jury trial”; (c) “[counsel’s failure] to object to the Court’s failure in not ascertaining whether the jury waiver was voluntarily and intelligently made”; (d) “[counsel’s failure] to properly advise and counsel petitioner regarding the ramifications of his waiver of jury as opposed to proceeding to a jury trial”; (2) “the judge [unlawfully] stated that if a plea bargain was not entered into then petitioner would be severely punished”; (3) “[t]he Court unlawfully imposed an excessive and improper sentence when it departed from the sentencing guidelines presumptive sentence”; (4) “[t]he Court accepted the waiver of jury without properly…