they should be considered was [sic] waived. OCGA Section 9-14-51. (Butts County Superior Court Order of September 10, 1987 at 9.) 9 . O.C.G.A. § 9-14-48(d) states in pertinent part: The court shall review the trial record and transcript of proceedings and consider whether the petitioner made timely motion or objection or otherwise complied with Georgia procedural rules at trial and on appeal; and absent a showing of cause for noncompliance with such requirement, and of actual prejudice, habeas corpus relief shall not be granted. 10 . The district court stated: The Respondent urges the court to honor the state procedural rule, despite the lack of a direct finding of a procedural bar. There is precedent for the Court to do so. See Lindsey v. Smith, 820 F.2d 1137 (11th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1059 [109 S.Ct. 1327,
holding that where state procedural rule was mandatory and unwaivable and where government filed motion to dismiss habeas petition based solely on noncompliance with this procedural rule which state court granted without explanation decision appeared to rest primarily on state law holding that a second or subsequent state petition for postconviction relief filed according to the procedural rules of the state constitutes a properly filed application  without regard to the merits of the petition holding that if the state court addresses both the procedural default and the merits of a federal claim in the alternative a federal court should apply the state procedural bar and decline to reach the merits of the claim holding that a state procedural default will not bar consideration of a federal claim on habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment clearly and expressly stated that its judgment rested on a state procedural bar holding that district court correctly applied state law procedural bar to petitioners jury challenge despite state courts failure to indicate that its denial of petition rested on procedural grounds where petitioner never raised facially sufficient jury challenge before any state court and state courts denial of petition could not be construed as a decision on the merits