that competency bears upon the knowing waiver of constitutional rights. See Dist. Ct. R. vol. VII, doc. 40 at 14, 20. The court concluded the record supports the state court determinations that petitioner was competent. On appeal, respondent notes that the district court correctly recognized the state jurisdictional rule requiring petitioner to withdraw his guilty pleas. Respondent, however, does not actually assert procedural bar. Instead, he cites to recent Tenth Circuit authority, Walker v. Attorney General, 167 F.3d 1339, 1344 (10th Cir.1999), and proceeds to discuss the merits of this claim. See Appellee’s Br. at 8-9. Because respondent does not specifically argue procedural bar, we turn to the merits of petitioner’s claim. See Hooks v. Ward, 184 F.3d 1206, 1216-17 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). The state trial court held two competency
holding that the oneyear bar contained in  2255 acts as an affirmative defense and not a jurisdictional bar holding state is required to raise procedural bar as affirmative defense or it is waived holding that the state may waive the affirmative defense of procedural default by failing to assert it holding that the exclusivity of workers compensation is an affirmative statutory defense which must be timely raised or it is waived holding that fair use is an affirmative defense