US EX REL. KING v. Peters, 91 C 3712.
Decision Date | 05 November 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 91 C 3712.,91 C 3712. |
Citation | 796 F. Supp. 1110 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America ex. rel. Kevin KING, Petitioner, v. Howard PETERS, Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Kelvin King, pro se.
Susan G. Feibus, Louis B. Garippo, Kane, Obbish, Propes and Garippo, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Steven Joseph Zick, Margaret Mary O'Connell, Illinois Attys. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Kevin King is a convicted murdered who filed a pro se petition in this court for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mr. King was convicted on June 17, 1985 of the murder of Arthur Warren and sentenced to thirty years in prison. Respondent has moved to dismiss on the grounds of exhaustion and procedural default. As outlined and explained below, the court requests that the parties submit additional briefing on the issue of whether Mr. King's voluntary dismissal of his Illinois Post-Conviction petition constitutes a procedural default.
This review of the facts is taken verbatim from the opinion of the Illinois Appellate Court which affirmed the conviction. The trial court records have been lost. See Respondent's Memorandum of Law in Support of Denial of the Writ at 3; Petitioner's Supplemental Memorandum at 2. Factual findings made by a state appellate court are accorded the same statutory presumption of correctness as that accorded state trial courts in a habeas proceeding. See Dooley v. Duckworth, 832 F.2d 445, 448 (7th Cir.1987).
King appealed his conviction to the Illinois Appellate Court. On appeal, King argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment. He also argued that the state did not prove him guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court ruled against him, upholding the conviction. King did not make a timely appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. In his petition for habeas corpus, King explains that the failure was because his appellate lawyer did not inform him of the Appellate Court's decision until several months after the decision was made. After the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in People v. Reddick, 123 Ill.2d 184, 122 Ill.Dec. 1, 526 N.E.2d 141 (1988), King made a motion to the Illinois Supreme Court for leave to file a late petition for leave to appeal, but the motion was denied.
In his pro se petition, Mr. King raised three grounds for relief. First, raising an argument that he did not make in his direct appeal, he contended that his due process rights were violated because the jury that convicted him was not properly instructed regarding the then-existing Illinois law on murder and manslaughter. King argues that the instructions deprived him of a possible affirmative defense because they failed to instruct the jury that it may not convict him of murder if it found that King had acted under an unreasonable belief that he was justified in using force. Under Illinois law in force at the time, persons who kill another with an unreasonable belief that force was justified as self-defense have committed voluntary manslaughter rather than murder. See Falconer v. Lane, 905 F.2d 1129 (7th Cir.1990) ( ); cf. People v. Reddick, 123 Ill.2d 184, 122 Ill.Dec. 1, 526 N.E.2d 141 (1988) ( ). Second, King argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Third, he argued that the State failed to prove him guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court appointed counsel for King on January 9, 1992. In King's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, King's appointed counsel represent that King has decided to pursue only his "Reddick/Falconer claim." See Supp.Mem. at 2. Although his claim was referred to as a "Reddick/Falconer claim," it is actually just a Falconer claim. While both Reddick and Falconer ruled that Illinois' pattern jury instructions on murder were erroneous, only the latter opinion was based on federal law. The Seventh Circuit has explained that Falconer held that Illinois pattern jury instructions on murder violated the due process clause, whereas Reddick was grounded exclusively on state law. See Taylor v. Gilmore, 954 F.2d 441 (7th Cir. 1992), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Apr. 27, 1992) (No. 91-1738). As federal habeas corpus relief can not be granted based on a violation of state law, Reddick can not be the basis for relief. Id. Falconer, however, could be the basis for relief. Id.
At the time he filed his habeas corpus petition, King also had pending in Illinois state court a post-conviction proceeding brought pursuant to Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 38, ¶ 122-1 (1989). That petition raised a Reddick argument and also asserted that the jury instructions violated due process (without citing Falconer). The petition, however, has been voluntarily dismissed by the petitioner with prejudice.
Before he dismissed with prejudice his post-conviction proceeding in Illinois state court, the state argued that King had failed to exhaust his state court remedies with respect to his jury instruction argument because the identical claim was pending in state court. At the same time, the state argued that King had procedurally defaulted on the jury instruction argument by failing to have raised it on direct appeal.
Because the post-conviction proceeding was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, King can not raise that argument again in Illinois post-conviction proceedings. See Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 38, ¶ 122-3; People v. Free, 122 Ill.2d 367, 119 Ill.Dec. 325, 522 N.E.2d 1184 (1988). Therefore, King presently has no unexhausted state remedies available to him....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
US EX REL. KING v. Peters
...and procedural default. The facts and procedural history are set out in this court's earlier opinion, United States ex rel. King v. Peters, 796 F.Supp. 1110 (N.D.Ill.1992) ("King I"), and will not be restated here except as In King I, the court held that while Mr. King, by failing to challe......