From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

White v. Godinez

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Sep 29, 1999
192 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 1999)

Summary

holding that the procedural default rule applies with equal force to state collateral review proceedings

Summary of this case from Thompson v. Harrington

Opinion

No. 96-3187

On Remand From the Supreme Court of the United States — Decided September 29, 1999

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division. No. 94 C 2055 — Harold A. Baker, Judge.

On Remand From the Supreme Court of the United States.

Jerold S. Solovy, Jenner Block, Chicago, IL, Brigitte Nuss, Chapman Cutler, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner-Appellant.

William L. Browers, Office of the Attorney General, Chicago, IL, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before CUMMINGS, WOOD, JR. and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.

The Honorable Walter J. Cummings was a member of the original panel; however, he died on April 24, 1999.


This matter is before the court on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court has directed that we reevaluate our decision in light of its holding in O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 1728 (1999). See Godinez v. White, 526 U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 2335 (1999).

In Boerckel, the Supreme Court held that failure to pursue a discretionary appeal to the highest court of the state constitutes a procedural default that bars resort to federal habeas corpus relief. Although Boerckel involved a criminal matter on direct appeal, we do not believe that there is any appreciable difference between direct appeals and post-conviction appeals in this regard. Therefore, the procedural default rule announced in Boerckel applies with equal force in a case, such as this one, on collateral review.

It is undisputed that two of the ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised by Mr. White were raised in his petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois. These two claims assert: (1) that his trial counsel failed to consult adequately with Mr. White before trial; and (2) that his trial counsel failed to call Bernice Caldwell as a witness. These two claims are therefore undefaulted and, with respect to those claims, the Supreme Court's holding in Boerckel has no impact on this court's original decision. See White v. Godinez, 143 F.3d 1049 (7th Cir. 1998). Therefore, in accordance with our earlier decision, these two claims must be remanded to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with our earlier decision.

REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS.


Summaries of

White v. Godinez

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Sep 29, 1999
192 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 1999)

holding that the procedural default rule applies with equal force to state collateral review proceedings

Summary of this case from Thompson v. Harrington

holding that Boerckel applies with equal force to the state post-conviction process

Summary of this case from United States v. Atchison

holding that failure to include ineffective assistance of counsel claims in discretionary post-conviction appeal to state supreme court resulted procedural default barring resort to federal habeas corpus relief

Summary of this case from Morrow v. McAdory

holding that failure to include ineffective assistance of counsel claims in discretionary postconviction appeal to highest court of state was procedural default that barred resort to federal habeas relief

Summary of this case from U.S. Ex. Rel. McGee v. Schomig

holding that a habeas petitioner procedurally defaults those claims pressed in appeal of state Postconviction petition, but not raised in Illinois Supreme Court

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Hartwig

concluding that there is no "appreciable difference between direct appeals and post-conviction appeals" with respect to the application of the Boerckel rule

Summary of this case from Pruitt v. Jones

stating that "[i]n Boerckel, the Supreme Court held that failure to pursue a discretionary appeal to the highest court of the state constitutes a procedural default that bars resort to federal habeas corpus relief" and that "the procedural default rule announced in Boerckel applies with equal force in a case, such as this one, on collateral review"

Summary of this case from Sargent v. Butler

applying O'Sullivan rule to claims presented in petitions for state post-conviction relief

Summary of this case from United States ex rel. Banks v. Harrington

applying the rule in the context of post-conviction proceedings

Summary of this case from U.S. ex Rel. Baker v. Acevedo

applying O'Sullivan rule to claims presented in petitions for state post-conviction relief

Summary of this case from Kolly v. Chandler

applying rule in the context of post-conviction proceedings

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Hinsley

applying the rule in the context of post-conviction proceedings

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Bowen

explaining that the procedural default rule announced in Boerckel that addressed a petitioner's failure to pursue a claim on direct appeal, "applies with equal force" in cases where a petitioner fails to pursue a claim in a post-conviction petition on collateral review

Summary of this case from Moss v. Trancoso

explaining that the procedural default rule announced in Boerckel that addressed a petitioner's failure to pursue a claim on direct appeal, "applies with equal force" in cases where a petitioner fails to pursue a claim in a post-conviction petition on collateral review

Summary of this case from Peters v. Sims

explaining that the procedural default rule announced in Boerckel that addressed a petitioner's failure to pursue a claim on direct appeal, "applies with equal force" in cases where a petitioner fails to pursue a claim in a post-conviction petition on collateral review.

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Briley

applying the O'Sullivan rule to post-conviction proceedings

Summary of this case from BARR v. McADORY

applying O'Sullivan rule to post-conviction proceedings

Summary of this case from Todd v. Leibach

noting that Boerckel involved a criminal matter on direct appeal, but nonetheless applying its holding to the failure to pursue such discretionary appeals on collateral review

Summary of this case from U.S. ex Rel. Gonzalez v. Briley
Case details for

White v. Godinez

Case Details

Full title:JEROME WHITE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SALVADOR A. GODINEZ…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Date published: Sep 29, 1999

Citations

192 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 1999)

Citing Cases

U.S. EX. REL. BRISBON v. FRY

Brisbon first claims that his trial counsel was ineffective because he did not (1) move for a severance; (2)…

U.S. ex Rel. Easley v. Hinsley

This voluntary omission deprived the highest state court of an opportunity to act on his Brady claims,…