Jones v. Duckworth
| Decision Date | 12 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-2746,91-2746 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) states unpublished orders shall not be cited or used as precedent except to support a claim of res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case in any federal court within the circuit. Otis R. JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack DUCKWORTH, and Indiana Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Before RIPPLE and MANION, Circuit Judges, and ROBERT A. GRANT, Senior District Judge **.
On December 14, 1990, Otis R. Jones filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state court conviction for murder. He seeks federal habeas relief on the grounds that the trial court erred when it: (1) admitted a videotaped statement by Bernadette Works, an eye-witness, which was merely cumulative of Works' in-court testimony and unduly prejudicial to the defense; (2) reversed its grant of a motion in limine, and allowed the state to introduce certain letters written by Jones to Works which contained inculpatory statements; and (3) found that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence where there was no physical evidence connecting Jones with the crime, and, according to Jones, Works' testimony was inherently unbelievable. These challenges are identical to those raised on direct appeal in the state court.
The Indiana Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the videotaped statement, Davis v. State, 456 N.E.2d 405 (Ind.1983); that Jones waived any possible error when he failed to object to admission of his inculpatory statements at the time they were introduced into evidence, Barnett v. State, 523 N.E.2d 430 (Ind.1988); and that Works' testimony was sufficient to support his conviction, Hill v. State, 517 N.E.2d 784 (Ind.1988). Jones v. State, No. 71A04-8905-CR-174 (Ind.App. Dec. 7, 1989). Its decision is the last word from the state courts in this case. Jones never sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, and never instituted any other post-conviction proceeding in the state courts challenging his conviction or sentence on constitutional grounds.
The state initially sought dismissal of the petition on the ground of procedural default, contending that Jones' claims were barred because he never sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, Nutall v. Greer, 764 F.2d 462, 465 (7th Cir.1985), and failed to show adequate cause for, and actual prejudice from, the default as required under Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 87-91 (1977). Id. See also Buelow v. Dickey, 847 F.2d 420, 428-29 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1032 (1989); United States ex rel. Bonner v. DeRobertis, 798 F.2d 1062, 1065 (7th Cir.1986). The district court, however, expressed a reluctance to address the issue, and ordered briefing on the merits.
The state thereafter filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim, contending that the admission of Works' videotaped statement and Jones' letters raised only questions of state procedural law which were not cognizable on federal review, Bell v. Duckworth, 861 F.2d 169, 170-71 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1088 (1989), and that Jones was also barred by a procedural default from raising any challenge to the admission of the inculpatory letters. Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255 (1989). While the state conceded that a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence may be cognizable on federal review, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), it argued that Works' testimony alone was sufficient to convict, United States v. Velasguez, 772 F.2d 1348, 1352 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1021 (1986), and that Jones' contentions to the contrary would not support a claim for habeas relief.
Jones specifically identified a constitutional basis for his petition for the first time in his response to the motion to dismiss. Quoting the language of § 2254, Jones contends:
(1) that the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in the State court hearing;
(2) that the factfinding procedure employed by the State court was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing;
(3) that the material facts were not adequately developed at the State court hearing;
* * *
* * *
(6) that the applicant did not receive a full, fair, and adequate hearing in the State court proceeding; [and]
(7) that the applicant was otherwise denied due process of law in the State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254.
By order dated May 30, 1991, the district court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that there was no constitutional basis for granting the writ. This appeal followed.
As we noted in United States ex rel. Simmons v. Gramley, 915 F.2d 1128, 1140 (7th Cir.1990):
[i]t is customary, when faced with an unaddressed procedural default, for this court to remand a case to the district court for a determination of petitioner's ability to establish cause and prejudice for the default.
We decline to do so in the present case only because the petition is so completely devoid of merit that a remand would be superfluous.
The claims raised by Jones in his petition are all premised on an alleged violation of the due process clause. The first two challenge that the trial court's evidentiary rulings were erroneous. Even under the liberal construction rule, United States ex rel. Jones v. Franzen, 676 F.2d 261, 266 (7th Cir.1982), Wilson v. Phend, 417 F.2d 1197, 1199 (7th Cir.1969), such cursory allegations cannot survive a motion to dismiss. The law is clear:
procedural errors committed in the course of a state criminal trial are not a ground for federal habeas corpus. Only constitutional error is a ground. Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 221 (1982). This fundamental limitation may not be got round by the facile equation of state procedural error to due process denial.
Bell, 861 F.2d at 170. See also Jones v. Thieret, 846 F.2d 457, 459-61 (7th Cir.1988). Jones has presented us with nothing more.
The admissibility of evidence is a matter of state law. Dudley v. Duckworth, 854 F.2d 967, 970 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1011 (1989). It does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation simply because the state court's decision to admit the challenged evidence may have been wrong. The due process clause "forbids only egregious departures from accepted standards of legal justice." Bell, 861 F.2d at 170 (citing Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Hanks
...defaulted and stating that "the petition is so completely devoid of merit that a remand would be superfluous." Jones v. Duckworth, 958 F.2d 374 (7th Cir.1992). Jones is not entitled to habeas corpus relief pursuant to the former habeas standard because he failed to show the requisite cause ......