22. Habeas corpus

7th circuit decision Habeas – Filing Deadline – DNA Motion as Tolling Price’s postconviction motion for DNA testing in Illinois state court didn’t toll the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas deadline, and his habeas petition is therefore deemed untimely. The court’s analysis relates to Illinois procedure. As will be seen, Wisconsin’s is meaningfully different… Read more

Alan Ward v. Deppisch, 7th Cir No. 08-2809, 07/23/2010 7th circuit decision, review of unpublished court of appeals decision Habeas – Procedural Default The state argues that Ward procedurally defaulted his claim because he failed to fairly present the Wisconsin courts with a federal issue, and the state courts ruled against Ward based on adequate… Read more

seventh circuit decision; denial of rehearing and en banc, 10/28/10 Habeas – Filing Deadline For purposes of the federal habeas 1-year statute of limitations, a state court’s decision to accept an untimely filing makes the postconviction review “properly filed” but it doesn’t make it retrospectively “pending” so as to toll the limitation period. Griffith seeks… Read more

7th circuit court of appeals decision Habeas – Miranda Waiver Viewed through the deferential lens of 2254 habeas review, a state court finding that the severely mentally impaired Collins knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights an incriminatory statement was not unreasonable. Collins had a Wechsler-scale IQ in the low- to mid-60s, exacerbated by a… Read more

Freddie L. Byers, Jr., v. Basinger, 7th Cir No. 09-1833, 7/9/10 7th Circuit decision Habeas – Exhaustion To exhaust a federal claim, a 2254 petitioner must have “fairly presented” it to the state court. … We use four factors to evaluate whether a petitioner has “fairly presented” his claim: “1) whether the petitioner relied on… Read more

7th Circuit decision Abstention – SVP Proceeding The Younger v. Harris abstention doctrine applies to pending ch. 980 proceedings. What is true is that a person who is in state custody awaiting a determination by the state courts of the legality of his custody may seek federal habeas corpus to challenge that custody without being… Read more

Issue: Whether, in federal habeas corpus proceedings, a state law under which a prisoner may be barred from collaterally attacking his conviction when the prisoner “substantially delayed” filing his habeas petition is “inadequate” to support a procedural bar because (1) the federal court believes that the rule is vague and (2) the state failed to prove that its courts “consistently” exercised their discretion when applying… Read more