U.S. ex rel. Hampton v. Detella

• Decision Date: 05 August 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97 C 7885.,97 C 7885.
• Citation: 39 F.Supp.2d 1031
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Joseph W. HAMPTON, Petitioner, v. George E. DETELLA, Warden, Stateville Correctional Center, and James Ryan, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

39 F.Supp.2d 1031

UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Joseph W. HAMPTON, Petitioner, v. George E. DETELLA, Warden, Stateville Correctional Center, and James Ryan, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, Respondents.

No. 97 C 7885.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

August 5, 1998.

David E. Camic, Wilson & Camic Ltd., Aurora, IL, Marvin Ira Bloom, Chicago, IL, for petitioner.

William Lloyd Browers, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Chicago, IL, Respondents.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MORAN, Senior District Judge.

Joseph Hampton (Hampton), a prisoner at Stateville Correctional Center, brings this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons discussed below, we defer ruling on the petition.

BACKGROUND

Hampton, along with a co-defendant, Jayme P. Sebers, was charged in the Circuit Court of Kendall County, Illinois, with multiple counts of attempted murder, armed robbery, and aggravated battery. The two waived their rights to a jury trial and on August 20, 1991, pleaded guilty to the charges and were sentenced. They both filed motions to withdraw their guilty pleas and to vacate the convictions, which were denied. In separate appeals, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the orders denying the motions to withdraw the guilty pleas and ordered that the defendants be allowed to enter new pleas. See People v. Hampton, 249 Ill.App.3d 873, 189 Ill.Dec. 344, 620 N.E.2d 3 (1993).

On remand, both defendants pled not guilty and requested that the court allow them to reinstate their jury demands, which the court denied. The case proceeded to bench trial and both were found guilty. Hampton was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of 30 years for each count of attempted murder and for the armed robbery count, for a total of 90 years imprisonment, with a concurrent term of 10 years for aggravated battery.

Hampton appealed, raising the following issues: (1) he was denied his right to defend against the charges when the trial judge declared him guilty without affording him an opportunity to present closing argument; (2) the court erred when it denied him the opportunity to impeach a state witness and admitted irrelevant and incompetent evidence; (3) the court erred in determining that his sentence for armed robbery must be served consecutive to his sentences for attempted murder; and (4) the court abused its discretion in sentencing him to consecutive extended-term sentences totaling 90 years imprisonment. On April 1, 1996, the Illinois Appellate Court denied Hampton's appeal. Hampton filed a timely leave for appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, which was denied on October 2, 1996. He then filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on March 31, 1997.

Co-defendant Sebers filed a separate appeal and on March 3, 1997, the appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of Sebers' request for a jury trial, and remanded the case to the pleading stage. On June 4, 1997, the Illinois Supreme Court denied the state's petition for leave to appeal the decision with regard to Sebers.

On November 12, 1997, Hampton filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, raising two claims: (1) he was denied due process of law and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the state court declared him guilty without allowing him to present a closing argument; and (2) he was denied his equal protection rights when the appellate court reversed Sebers' conviction on the basis that the trial court had erred in denying his request for a jury trial.

DISCUSSION

On the merits, Hampton's petition is governed by the recent amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Section 2254(d) governs the consideration of any claim adjudicated by a state court on its merits. Lindh v. Murphy, 96 F.3d 856, 868-71 (7th Cir. 1996), rev'd on other grounds, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). Under § 2254(d)(1), habeas relief may be awarded only if the state court's adjudication of the claim "resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law," as determined by the United States Supreme Court. Under subsection (d)(2), habeas relief is only possible if the state court adjudication "resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented" in the state court. The "unreasonable application" exception of § 2254(d)(1) applies to mixed question of law and fact, and thus where the state court offers "a responsible, thoughtful answer" after "a full opportunity to litigate" the question, a federal court on habeas review must accept that answer as "adequate to support the judgment." Id. at 871.

However, "[b]efore a federal court may review the merits of a claim raised by a state prisoner in a habeas petition, the petitioner must fulfill the procedural requirements set by state law for seeking judicial review in the state courts." Lemons v. O'Sullivan, 54 F.3d 357, 360 (7th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 993, 116 S.Ct. 528, 133 L.Ed.2d 434 (1995). Forfeiture of a claim under § 2254 "is a question of a state's internal law: failure to present a claim at the time, and in the way, required by the state is an independent state ground of decision, barring review in federal court." Hogan v. McBride, 74 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1996). Procedural default may occur in one of two ways. First, the petitioner may fail to raise fairly and properly an issue on direct appeal or post-conviction review. See Momient-El v. DeTella, 118 F.3d 535, 538-39 (7th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 448, 139 L.Ed.2d 384 (1997). Alternatively, procedural default occurs when the state court clearly relies on a state procedural bar as an independent basis for its denial of relief. See Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 327, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985); Boerckel v. O'Sullivan, 135 F.3d 1194, 1197 (7th Cir.1998). A petitioner may raise a procedurally defaulted claim in a habeas proceeding only by showing good cause for the default and actual prejudice stemming therefrom. United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982).

Hampton's first claim is that the state court's refusal to afford him the right to present closing argument was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, his clearly established Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 95 S.Ct. 2550, 45 L.Ed.2d 593 (1975). Hampton's lawyer did not object at the time the trial court began to make findings nor did he request to make closing arguments. On appeal, the court found that Hampton had waived his right to present closing argument by this failure to object. People v. Hampton, 281 Ill. App.3d 1140, 233 Ill.Dec. 775, 701 N.E.2d 840 (1996), (citing People v. Coleman, 212 Ill.App.3d 997, 157 Ill.Dec. 16, 571 N.E.2d 1035, 1039 (1991)). Because the appellate court clearly relied on the failure to object to deny Hampton's claim, the state argues that he is procedurally barred from raising that claim on habeas.

Normally, a defendant's failure to object at trial constitutes a waiver of the underlying issue that acts as a procedural bar on habeas review so long as the state "regularly or consistently applie[s]" a contemporaneous objection rule to bar consideration of errors on direct appeal. Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578, 587, 108 S.Ct. 1981, 100 L.Ed.2d 575 (1988). However, we are not dealing here with the straightforward application of the type of state procedural rule that would support a finding of default. Instead, Hampton asks this court to find that the state court's finding of waiver in itself constituted a violation of federal law. It is well established that the issue of whether a defendant knowingly waives his right to present a closing statement by failing to object is an issue of constitutional magnitude. See United States v. Spears, 671 F.2d 991 (7th Cir.1982). Accordingly, we find that Hampton has not procedurally defaulted his Sixth Amendment claim that he was denied the right to summation.

We therefore turn to an evaluation of Hampton's Sixth Amendment claim on the merits. The United States Supreme Court in Herring, 422 U.S. at 856-65, 95 S.Ct. 2550, held that it is per se reversible error in any criminal trial, whether to a jury or to a judge, for the court to deny the defendant the opportunity to present a closing argument. The court reasoned that the opportunity to make closing argument is an integral part of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, the Herring court endorsed the proposition that the right to present a summation may be waived by quoting with approval the statement of the Maryland Court of Appeals in a previous case:

The Constitutional Right of a defendant to be heard through counsel necessarily includes the right to have his counsel make a proper argument on the evidence and the applicable law in his favor, however simple, clear, unimpeached, and conclusive the evidence may seem, unless he has waived his right to such argument....

Id. at 860, 95 S.Ct. 2550 (quoting Yopps v. State, 228 Md. 204, 178 A.2d 879, 881 (1962)). Generally, before a waiver of the right to present closing argument will be found, the record must demonstrate its "intentional relinquishment or abandonment." Spears, 671 F.2d at 993 (citing Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938)).

Although acknowledging the right to summation could be theoretically waived, the Herring court did not discuss the factors sufficient to show waiver, and this issue has continued to vex courts that have dealt with this issue. While it is clear that a defendant may waive his right to closing argument where his lawyer explicitly declines the court's offer to make such argument, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. McCray, 212 Pa.Super. 457, 243 A.2d 453 (1968), where the issue of summation...