court, but contends that the issues contained in that motion have since been resolved by the superior court’s factual finding pertaining to a later discovery motion. Therefore, Dorenbos contends, since there are no remaining issues unresolved, federal review should be permitted. We reject this contention. The United States Supreme Court has held that in order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of section 2254, habeas petitioners must fairly present federal claims to the state courts in order to give the state the opportunity to pass upon and to correct alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66, 115 S.Ct. 887, 130 L.Ed.2d 865 (1995) (per curiam); see also Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351, 109 S.Ct. 1056, 103 L.Ed.2d 380 (1989) (<HOLDING>). The Washington Court of Appeals and
holding that a petitioner does not fairly present his claim where the claim has been presented for the first and only time in a procedural context in which its merits will not ordinarily be considered holding that claims which were not presented to the motion court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding where a claim is presented for the first and only time in a procedural context in which the merits are not likely to be considered unless there are special and important reasons the petition is not exhausted holding that a claim not raised before the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal recognizing that sanctions are collateral to the merits of the case and may be considered even after the merits are no longer before the district court