On Point: 22. Habeas corpus

Question presented

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?

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.

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).

Myron A. Gladney v. William Pollard, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 13-3141, 8/26/15

In 2013 Gladney filed a habeas petition challenging his state conviction, which became final in 1999. The district court properly dismissed the petition as untimely because even if the limitations period could have been tolled until Gladney found out about his counsel’s failure to interview a defense witness, his petition would still have been filed well outside the adjusted limitations period. Nor can Gladney satisfy the narrow “actual innocence” exception under Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), to disregard the time limits for seeking federal habeas relief.

Benjamin Barry Kramer v. United States, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-3049, 8/17/15

Sticking with its decision in Suggs v. United States, 705 F.3d 279 (7th Cir. 2013), the Seventh Circuit holds that Kramer’s most recent habeas petition challenging a conviction that was not affected by his three previous petitions is a second or successive petition and Kramer therefore needed authorization to file the petition from the Court of Appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

Andre Jackson v. Marc Clements, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-1145, 8/12/15

Jackson’s habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his extradition from Illinois to Wisconsin became moot once he was convicted in Wisconsin of the charges for which he was extradited.

Humberto Sanchez-Rengifo v. J.F. Caraway, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 14-2876, 8/14/15

Sanchez-Rengifo sought relief from his conviction for sexual assault by filing a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt. The district court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petition should have been filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 unless that route is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention”—a showing Sanchez-Rengifo failed to make. Though the district court applied the wrong statute, it doesn’t matter because Sanchez-Rengifo hasn’t met the standard for getting a certificate of appealability.

Renardo Carter v. Timothy Douma, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 13-3312, 8/6/15

Carter’s trial counsel failed to object to a police officer’s testimony about the hearsay statements of a confidential informant who said Carter was involved in drug dealing. While the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reasonably concluded that the failure to object didn’t prejudice Carter, the Seventh Circuit issues a useful warning about the improper use of the “course of investigation” rationale for admitting out-of-court statements.

Benjamin Price v. United States, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-2427, 8/4/15

Price seeks to bring a successive collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) to the enhancement of his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. He claims that Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which held that the imposition of an enhanced sentence under the residual clause of ACCA violates due process, announces a new substantive rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has categorically made retroactive to final convictions. The Seventh Circuit agrees.

Laderian McGhee v. Michael A. Dittmann, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-1763, 7/22/15

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reasonably applied federal law in rejecting McGhee’s claim that he was denied the right to self-representation under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).