in the habeas petition not as an ineffective assistance of appellate claims, but as ineffective assistance of trial counsel and trial court error claims. Although the Ohio Supreme Court arguably addressed the merits of claims 33(a) and (b) during the Mumahan application, it addressed them in the context of appellate counsel’s failure to raise this issue on appeal, rather than as an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim. The Ohio Supreme Court similarly addressed claim 43, rather than reviewing it as the trial court error claim raised in the habeas petition. Because the claims were raised in state court under a different theory than the petitioner raised them in the federal habe- as petition, they are procedurally defaulted. See Wong v. Money, 142 F.3d 313, 322 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). No reasonable jurist would dispute this
holding that plaintiff could not present his erisa estoppel claim to the district court because he did not properly exhaust it before the administrative review board holding applicants general state court claim was insufficient to exhaust his later more specific federal habeas claim holding that complaint on appeal must be the same as that presented in the trial court holding that to exhaust a claim a petitioner must present it to the state courts under the same theory in which it is later presented in federal court holding substance of claim must have been presented to state court