familiar provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), we may not grant a writ of habeas corpus unless the state court’s decision under review was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). As an initial matter, Petitioner argues that § 2254(d) does not apply to his petition because the California Supreme Court did not adjudicate Petitioner’s excessive delay claim “on the merits” when he first brought this claim to the California Supreme Court’s attention in a petition for state habeas relief filed in 1998, while his direct appeal was pending. See Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 780, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) (<HOLDING>). The court denied that petition in a brief but
holding that aedpa only applies where the state court adjudicated the constitutional issue on the merits recognizing that  2254d by its own terms applies only to claims previously adjudicated on the merits in statecourt proceedings holding that by its terms rule 50 applies only to jury trials holding that aedpa limits a federal habeas court to the record before the state court where a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by the state court holding that a claim brought in a pro se brief that the state court did not address was not adjudicated on the merits as required by  2254d