Unpublished Disposition, 886 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir. 1987)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Carl Dumler appeals pro se the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. He contends that he lost his right to directly appeal his conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Dumler requests that this court (1) reinstate his right to appeal, (2) order the appointment of counsel for that appeal, (3) order that he be provided with transcripts of his trial and related proceedings, and (4) reprimand the district court and the Oregon state courts for delays that violated his rights. The government contends that Dumler's writ of habeas corpus is moot. We agree and therefore affirm.

Carl Dumler was convicted of intentional murder in the state of Oregon on May 4, 1987. The Public Defender prepared a notice of appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals within the thirty-day time limit but inadvertently sent the notice to the wrong address. As a result, Dumler's notice of appeal was ultimately filed with the Oregon Court of Appeals one day late. The Oregon Circuit Court denied Dumler's motion to file a delayed appeal and the Oregon Supreme Court denied review of that decision. Dumler then petitioned the federal district court for habeas corpus relief on the ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The district Court dismissed the petition with no reason given.

This court reviews de novo a district court's decision on a petition for habeas corpus. Carter v. McCarthy, 806 F.2d 1373, 1375 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 108 S. Ct. 198 (1987).

Dumler contends that because of the ineffective assistance of his counsel, he was caused to forfeit his right to directly appeal his conviction. The Oregon Court of Appeals has issued, however, an order allowing Dumler to file a delayed appeal. For this reason, Dumler's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is now moot.¹  Federal Courts do not have jurisdiction to hear moot issues. See Liner v. Jafco, Inc., 375 U.S. 301 (1964).

B. Appointment of Counsel, Provision of Transcripts, and Reprimand

Dumler asks this court to order that he be appointed counsel for his direct appeal, order that he be provided with transcripts of his trial and related proceedings, and reprimand the district court and the Oregon state courts for delays that allegedly violated his rights. An indigent criminal defendant does have a right to counsel for his first appeal as of right. See Douglas v. People of the State of California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963). An indigent criminal appellant also generally has a right to be provided, free of charge, with a copy of that portion of the record below which is necessary to afford adequate and effective appellate review. See Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956). Moreover, We regret that Dumler's right to appeal was delayed due to the inadvertence of the appointed Public Defender. However, Dumler raises these three issues for the first time with this court, and We do not decide issues which were not presented in the district court. See Jovanovich v. U.S., 813 F.2d 1035 (9th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.