¶1Jane Simkin Smith (Vivian Shevitz, Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
¶2Janet M. Berk (Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Kings County, Barbara B. Underwood, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
¶3Before KAUFMAN, MESKILL and MAHONEY, Circuit Judges.
¶5In Mancuso v. Harris, 677 F.2d 206 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1019, 103 S.Ct. 382, 74 L.Ed.2d 514 (1982), we held that the jury instructions at petitioner-appellant’s New York criminal trial for felony murder did not violate Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979). Accordingly, we reversed the grant of a writ of habeas corpus by the district court.
¶6Thereafter, petitioner-appellant commenced new federal habeas proceedings, contending that: (1) the intervening decision in Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 105 S.Ct. 1965, 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985), required reconsideration of the Sandstrom issue; and (2) a jury instruction that permitted the jury to impute the intent of one co-felon to all co-felons was unconstitutional. The district court reached the merits of both issues, and held that both were foreclosed by our prior decision.
¶7The second issue, however, has never been exhausted in the state courts. Petitioner-appellant explicitly conceded in his brief to this court on the prior appeal that this issue was unexhausted.1 There have been no state court proceedings since then. Accordingly, the claim is not ripe for adjudication in the federal courts.
¶8Under those circumstances, Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982), requires that the entire petition be dismissed without consideration of its merits. See Petrucelli v. Coombe, 735 F.2d 684, 687 (2d Cir.1984).
¶9We therefore vacate the decision of the district court and remand with directions to *2dismiss the petition without prejudice for lack of exhaustion.