The two additional habeas claims on appeal, claims 1(F) and 1(C), deal with defense trial counsel’s failure to address the intent element in Oregon’s burglary statute. Claim 1(F) involves defense counsel’s failure to argue to the jury that Decker lacked the intent required for a criminal defendant to be convicted of burglary under Oregon law. Claim 1(C) involves defense counsel’s failure to request a jury instruction explaining the intent required for a criminal defendant to be convicted of burglary under Oregon law. The District Court excused Decker’s procedural default on claims 1(F) and 1(C) under Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012) even though Decker failed to raise these claims in the state habeas proceeding as required by Oregon law. Id. at 1316 (<HOLDING>); State v. Robinson, 560 P.2d 758, 25 Or.App.
holding in a federal prisoners habeas case under 28 usc  2255 that the district court may raise the question of procedural default even if that defense was waived by the government holding habeas petitioners may show cause for such default in specific circumstances in states that require petitioners to raise iatc claims in initial state habeas proceedings rather than on direct appeal holding that a prisoners failure to pursue an appeal in state court is a procedural bar to federal habeas relief unless the petitioner shows both cause for failing to bring the state claim  and actual prejudice from the failure to consider his federal claims holding that a federal court may excuse a state habeas petitioners procedural default if the petitioner can show cause for the failure to raise the claim and prejudice resulting from such failure holding that the novelty of a petitioners claim can constitute cause for a procedural default