On Point blog, page 10 of 23
Welch v. United States, USSC No. 15-6418, cert. granted 1/8/16
I. Whether the District Court was in error when it denied relief on Petitioner’s §2255 motion to vacate, which alleged that a prior Florida conviction for “sudden snatching,” did not qualify for ACCA enhancement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §924(e).
II. Whether Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), announced a new substantive rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to cases that are on collateral review. Furthermore, Petitioner asks this Court to resolve the Circuit split which has developed on the question of Johnson retroactivity in the Seventh and the Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals.
Seventh Circuit cracks open a door for juveniles challenging non-mandatory, de facto life sentences
Bernard McKinley v. Kim Butler, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 14-1944, 1/4/16
McKinley failed to raise an Eighth Amendment claim in his state court challenges to the sentence he received for a murder he committed at the age of 16. That means he procedurally defaulted the claim for purposes of his federal habeas challenge to the sentence. But instead of affirming the district court’s dismissal of McKinley’s habeas petition, a majority of this Seventh Circuit panel stays the habeas proceeding and, based on reasoning that could be useful to other juveniles seeking to challenge long sentences, gives McKinley a chance to go back to state court to challenge his sentence under Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).
Challenge to waiver of appellate counsel can’t overcome “stiff” AEDPA burden
Gregory Jean-Paul v. Timonty Douma, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-3088, 12/31/15
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reasonably concluded that Jean-Paul validly waived his right to appellate counsel based on the waiver form he signed and his correspondence with his appellate lawyer.
SCOTUS summarily reverses grant of habeas relief
White v. Wheeler, USSC No. 14-1372, 2015 WL 8546240, 12/14/15 (per curiam), reversing Wheeler v. Simpson, 779 F.3d 366 (6th Cir. 2015); docket
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to give proper deference to the state courts’ rulings when it granted habeas relief on the ground that the state courts unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent regarding removal of a juror in a death penalty case.
Habeas petitioner’s speedy trial claim stopped cold
Chester O’Quinn v. Tom Spiller, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 14-1836, 11/25/15
The state appellate court reasonably applied Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), the controlling Supreme Court precedent for Sixth Amendment speedy‐trial claims, when it rejected O’Quinn’s claim that the 42-month delay in holding his trial violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Habeas claims were waived due to failures to raise them at critical points in state court
Vernard Crockett v. Kim Butler, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 14-2320, 11/17/15
Crockett procedurally defaulted his insufficient evidence and confrontation clause claims by failing to preserve the claims at various stages of his direct appeals in state court.
Perjury by state’s witness gets habeas petitioner a new trial
Paysun Long v. Kim Butler, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 13-3327, 10/27/15
Long is entitled to habeas relief because the prosecutor in his state murder trial failed to correct perjured testimony given by a state’s witness.
Duncan v. Owens, USSC 14-1516, cert. granted 10/1/15
Did the Seventh Circuit violate 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a long line of this Court’s decisions by awarding habeas relief in the absence of clearly established precedent from this Court?
Guilty plea was valid despite judge’s mistaken statement about mandatory minimum sentence
Percell Dansberry v. Randy Pfister, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 13-3723, 9/15/15
The judge who took Dansberry’s guilty plea understated the mandatory minimum sentence Dansberry faced, and therefore Dansberry’s plea was not entered with a full understanding of the consequences, as required under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), and Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970). But the Supreme Court has not held Boykin errors to be structural, so the state court’s rejection of his plea withdrawal motion on harmless error grounds was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
Seventh Circuit affirms grant of habeas relief, finds harmless error analysis done by Wisconsin Court of Appeals to be unreasonable
Mark D. Jensen v. Marc Clements, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-1380, 9/8/15, affirming Jensen v. Schwochert, No. 11-C-0803 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 18, 2013)
At Jensen’s trial for the murder of his wife Julie the State introduced Julie’s handwritten letter to the police, written two weeks before her death, in which she wrote she would never take her life and that her husband should be the suspect if anything should happen to her. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals assumed the admission of the letter violated Jensen’s right to confrontation but found the error harmless. The Seventh Circuit holds that the court of appeals’ decision was an unreasonable application of the Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), harmless error standard, and that the erroneous admission of the hearsay evidence had a substantial and injurious influence or effect in determining the jury’s verdict, thus satisfying the actual prejudice standard under Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993).