## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08
- 1234 F ORRE S T W OODS, Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v. G REG O RY S CHW ART Z, W ar den, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 07 C438

—Wayn e R. Andersen, Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 24, 2009

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 9, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, M A NI ON, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. M A N I ON, C ircu it Judge. For re st W oo ds w as convi cted i n I l l i no i s st at e co urt of m ur der i ngOm arW i l so n a nd sente nced to f or ty yea rs ’ i m pri sonm ent. A fterunsuccess full y ap p ealing his sent en ce, he fi led th ree state-cou rt p e t i t i o n s f o r p o s t
- co nv i c t i o n r e l i e f
. Al lwe r e d e n i e d
. He then fi l ed a pet i ti on f ora w ri t o fh ab ea s cor pu s under 28 U. S
. C. § 2 25 4. The di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed hi s p eti ti o n, hol ding that al lbut one i ssue w as p rocedural l y b ar re d2 N o. 08
- 1234

a nd de ny i ngr e l i e fo n the si ng l e p r e s e r v e d i s s ue . On ap p e a l, Wo o d s c h a l l e n g e s th e d e n i a lo fh i s p e t i ti o n. We a ffi r m.
I. On the ni ght o fJ uly10 , 1 99 5, K enya W i l son w al ked o uto fa b edr o o m i n h erHaz elCres t, I l l i no i s ho m e an d sa w herb r o th erOm ara t th e bo tt o m o fthe s ta i r s be i ng r e s t r ain ed from be h in d by an u n kn ow n m an , l at er id en tifi ed as For re st W oo ds. Overa span o f t h re e m i nutes, O m ar alt er n at ed be tw ee n ca llin g for h is br ot h er T er re ll Wi l s o n a n d t e l l i n gK e n y a t o g o b a c kt o h e r b e d r o o m. Then, w ith ou t a word, W oo ds shotOm ari n the backo f the h e a d. A t this, K en ya r a n int o a bath room and shu t the door. W oo ds chased a fterh er and tr i ed to ga i n entr y b ut fl ed when Te r r el lc ame o uto fhi s r o o m t o i nv es ti g at e th e gunshot. I t was atthi s point thatTer re l lgot a bri eflo ok at W oo ds. The pol i ce were t h en cal l ed, and Om arwas pronounced dead at the s cene. N ei therKenya norTer re l lknew the s hoot er . Both des cr ibe d hi m a s a b l ac kman wi tha l i g htc o m pl ex i o n, ro u n d fac e, an d a hu sk y or st oc ky b u ild
. K e n y a in i tia lly est i m ate d that he w as between ei ghtee n and tw enty yea rs o ld , st oo d between 5’ 7” and 5’ 8", and w ei ghed 16 5 po unds
. At the t i m e o fhi s ar r es t, W ood s w as s ev en tee n, st oo d 5’ 10” and w ei ghed ap proxi m ate l y 2 25 pound s. To i denti fy the sh ooter, the pol i ce ini ti al l y pr ese nted K enya w i th o vera thousand photos , but she di d notN o. 08
- 1234 3 recogn ize him i n th e initi a l b a tch
. Ov er a w eek later, Offi ce r Ray m o nd Hugg i ns o fthe Chi ca g o Hous i ngAuth or ity w as att h e s c en e o f a d om es tic d ist u rb an c e. A su sp ect th ere volun teered the fol low ing nu gget of inform ati on: “Did y ou hea r about the s hoot i ng i n H azelCres t? Boy nam ed Foo

- Foo did i t. ” H uggi ns w as f am i liar with F o o - F o o : he ha d pr ev i o us l y a r r es te d F o r r es t W o o ds us i ng that al i as. H uggi ns then re l aye d the ti p to Offi cer Gary G en tz le, w h o w as inv es ti ga tin g O m ar ’s m u rd er , an d ga ve G en tz le a pho to o fW o o ds. Tha t pho to was s ho wn to Keny a, a l o ng w i th se ven o therphoto s; she i m m edi ate l y i denti fi ed W oo d s a s t h e s h oo te r. T h e n ex t d ay bo th sh e a n d T er re ll i de nt i fi e d Wo o ds i n a l i ne up . T he s t a t e c ha r g e d Wo o ds wi thfi r st
- deg r ee murde r ; he pl ea ded no t g ui lty a nd p ro c ee d ed to tria l. Atthe o ne - da y b e nc h t r i a l, Ke ny a a nd T e r r e l lt est i f i ed to the e vents o n the ni ght o fOm ar ’ s m urder, and both aga i n i denti fi ed W oo ds as the s hoot er . The pro secuti on al so cal l ed Offi cerGentzl e an d O m ar ’ s m othe r to tes ti fy. The defe nse di d not c al lany w i tness es. W oo ds w as f o und gui l tyo fmurde r i ng Omar W i l so n a nd l at ers en t e nc e d t o f o r t y y e a r s ’ i mpr i s o nme nt . He the n fi l e d a di r ec t appe alc ha ll en g i nghi s se nt en ce b utno t hi s co nvi cti on. The I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Courtaffirm ed W oo ds’ se n te n c e, an d th e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rtd en ied h im lea ve to ap p ea l. W oo ds then fi l ed the fi rs t o fthr ee p os t-c onvi cti on p et iti ons i n I l l i noi s s tat e co urt. The fi rs t pet i ti on r ai sed th re e is su es . Pe rt in en t h er e w as W oo d s’ c laim th at h is4 N o. 08
- 1234 tr i alco unselr endered co nsti tuti onal l y ineffecti ve assi sta n c e b y fa i l i ng to cal lhi s br othe r, H ar ol d W oo ds, as an alib i w itn es s . A tt ac h ed to th e p et itio n w as an affid av it fro m H ar old prepar ed f our yea rs afterthe shoo ti ng, sta ti ng, “Idon’ t r ecal l[ W oo ds] l eaving the house anyti m e t ha t ni g ht
. ” The t r i alc o ur t di smi ss ed th e pet i ti o n, concl ud i ng the cl ai m s s houl d have b ee n pres ented o n dir ect appeal and w er e thus w ai ved. The appel l ate cour t, however, hel d that W oo ds’ cl ai m o fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unselwas not w ai ved and add re sse d i t o n t h e m erits un d er St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 46 6 U.S
. 66 8 ( 1984 )
. I t found that Ha ro ld ’s a ffi davi t was i nconcl usi ve, an d b as ed o n the e y ewi tn es s te st i m o ny at t ri al, i t co nc lu d ed th at h ad H ar old te st ified it “w ou ld n otlikely ha ve c ha ng ed th e o ut co m e o fthe tr i al ” an d de ni ed th e peti ti on. The I lli noi s S uprem e Cour t deni ed W oo ds’ p et itio n for lea ve to ap p ea l. W oo ds then fi l ed a s eco nd peti ti on f orpost
- convi cti on re l i ef, cl ai m i ng that h is t ri alco unselwas i neffecti ve f or f ai l i ng to cal lhi s m othe r and bro ther

- i n-l aw as al ibi w i tne s s e s . At t a c he d t o the p e t i t i o n we r e the i r a ffi dav i ts at te st i ng to W o o ds’ pr es en ce at ho m e o n th e ni g ht o f the m ur der
. The t r i alc o ur t di smi ss ed th e pet i ti o n, a nd the appe l l at e co ur t affi r m ed, ho l d ing thatthe c l ai m a nd the affi davi ts shoul d have be en subm i tte d i n W oods’ i ni ti al post- conv ictio n peti ti on a nd were thus waive d. I t a l so hel d that W oo ds coul d not est abl i sh cause and prej ud i ce to e sc ape the pr o ce dur alb aro fwai ve r . The I l l i no i s S uprem e Court aga i n denie d W oo ds’ peti ti on f or l eave to ap p ea l.N o. 08
- 1234 5 U nd ete rr ed, W oo ds fi l ed a thi rd peti ti on f orpost
- convi cti on re l i ef
. I n i t, he ra i sed thre e cl ai m s w i th twel ve dist i nct s ub-c l ai m s. The tr ial courtdi sm i sse d the peti ti on as “friv olo u s a n d p at en tly w ith ou t m er i t .” O n ap p ea l, W o o ds ’ a pp o i nt e d c o un s e lfi l e d a m ot ion t o w i thdraw un d er P e n n s y l v a nia v. Fin ley, 4 81 U. S
. 5 51 ( 19 87 )
. In the m oti on, co unselr eci ted the pro ceduralhi sto ryo f W oo ds’ case and sta ted W oo ds has show n no obj ecti ve f acto r w hy he coul d not have rai sed these cl ai m s in hi s o ri gi nalpost
- convi cti on pet i ti on, a nd the r efo r e he may no t se ekr el i efi n a su cc es si ve pe ti ti o n. W ith th e exc ep tion of Fin ley, the m ot ion d i d not ci te any fe der all aw. W o o ds th enfi l ed two o bj ec ti o ns r es ta tingthe b ases for the c l ai m s i n h i s th i r d pe ti ti o n; how eve r, he di d not a dd re ss the proce du ra lbaro fwaive r that hi s co unselhad ci ted. But he di d note, wit h out anyth in g m or e, th at th e failu re to en te rt ain h is p et itio n w ou ld resu lt in a m iscarriage ofj us tice. T he ap p ell ate cou rt gr anted the m oti on t o w i thdraw and affi rm ed the tr i al cour t’ s di sm issa lo fthe peti ti on. In thei r re specti ve ord ers, ne ither th e trialcou rt nor th e a p p e llate cou rt ci ted o r dis c u ssed fe derall aw . A nd f orthe f ourth ti m e, the I l l i noi s S up re m e C ou rt deni ed W oo ds’ peti ti on f or lea ve to ap p ea l. W o o ds th enfi l ed a pet i ti o n fo r a wri t o fhabe as c o r pus un d er 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254 in t he U nited States D istri ct C ou rt f o r the Nor th ern Di st r i cto fI l l i no i s. In h i s pet i ti o n, he ra i sed se vente en cl ai m s. The di str i ct c ourtf ound that W oo ds ha d p r o c e du r a l l y de f a ul t e d a l lb uto ne o ftho se6 N o. 08
- 1234 cl ai m s a nd thathe c oul d not e scape the pr oce du ra lbar unde r a ny o fthe a ppl i cabl e ex ce pti o ns . Co nc erni ngthe m er i ts ofhi s pre ser ve d cl ai m o fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce o f co uns elf o r f ai l i ngt o c al lHaro l d W o o ds to t es ti fy, the di st r i ctc o ur t f o und tha t i n denying th atc l ai m the Illino i s A p p ella te C ou rtd id n otu n re as on ab ly a p p ly St r i ck l and ’ s s ta n dard f ori neffecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel an d de ni ed W o o ds’ pe ti ti o n. W oo ds then m oved f ora cer ti fi cate o fappeal abi l i ty, w hich the d istri c t c o u rt de nied
. Th is court, how ever, gr anted hi m one on the f ol l owing i ssues : w h et her W oo d s’ t ria l co u n se l w as ine ffec t i v e fo r failin g t o c h all enge K enya W i l son’ s abi l i ty to vi ew the cri m e; wh ether W oo d s ’ a p p ella te co u n se l w as ine ffec tiv e fo r ra isin g on ly a for fei ted i ssue; a n d w hetherW oo ds’ tr i alco unselwas i neffecti ve f orf ai l i ng to i denti fy a n d c al lal ibiwitne s s e s . T hi s a pp e a l f o l l o we d.

II. A. T h e first tw o c laim s W oo d s ra ise s o n ap p ea l are th at h is ap p ell ate cou ns el w as ineffective f or rai sing on ly a forfei ted i ssue and that hi s t ria l co unselwas i neffecti ve f or f ai li ng to c ha l l en g e Keny a W i l so n’ s ab i l i tyt o v i ew the crim e. T he district cou rt found th at both clai m s w ere proce du ra l l y d ef aul ted and w e r evi ew thatdeter m i nati on d e n ov o. Sm ith v. G aetz , 565 F.3d 346 , 352 (7th C ir. 2009). B efo re se ek in g h ab ea s re lief, a p e t i t ion er m u st fairly prese nt hi s federa lcl ai m s a t each l eve lo fthe sta te’ s co urtsN o. 08
- 1234 7 for th eir rev iew . 28 U .S.C . § 2 2 5 4 (b )(1) (A ); Baldwi n v . R eese, 541 U .S. 27, 32 (2 00 4). T h e n a t u ra l co ro llar y of t h is re q u ire m en t is t h a t w h en a p et itio n er h as ex h au st ed h is st at e c ou rtrem ed ies an d failed to p ro p er ly a ss er t h is fede r alc l ai m s ate ac h l ev elo fr ev i ew tho se c l ai m s ar e proce du ra l l y def aul te d
. Le wis v. St e r ns , 39 0 F
. 3d 1019 , 1026 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. A nd wh en a sta te c ou rtr eso l ves a federa lcl ai m byr est i ng i ts deci si on o n a s tat e la w gr ound independent ofthe federa lquesti on a nd adequa te t o s uppo r t th e j ud gm en t, we wi l lno t r ev i ew the q u es tio n of fed er al la w . Cole m an v. Thom ps on , 50 1 U.S
. 72 2, 72 9 (2 00 1). A n y s u c h ru lin g o n t h e fe d er al c laim s w ou ld be a dvis or y, gi ven t h e fa ct that o n re m and the s tat e co ur t woul d s ti l lde ny pet i ti o ne r re l i efon th e i nde pen den t an d a d e q u a t e s ta te law gro u n d
. Id. at72 9 ( “Because thi s Courthas no pow er t o revi ew a sta te l aw deter m i nati on that i s s u fficie nt to support the j ud gm ent, r eso l uti on of a ny i nd ependent federa lgr ound fo r the deci si on co u ld n otaffe c t t h e ju d gm en t a n d w ou ld th er efo re be ad visory.”)
. T hu s, w he n a sta te refuses to adj ud icate a p etitioner’s fede ral claim s beca us e the y w ere not r a is ed i n ac cord w ith t h e st at e’s p ro c ed u ra l ru les , th at w ill no rm ally qua l i fy as an i nde pen den t an d ade qua te st ate gr o und for d en yin g fe d er al re vie w . Con ev . Bell , 5 56 U
. S. ___, 12 9 S. Ct. 17 69, 17 80 ( 2009 )
. “A find i ng o fwaive r by th e s tat e postco nvi cti on co urt i s e nough to es ta b li sh an a dequ ate an d ind ependent sta te gr ound.” Stu rgeo n v . Ch a nd ler, 55 2 F.3 d 60 4, 61 1 (7 th C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ) . Su c h cla im s a re co m m on ly re fer re d to as be in g p ro c ed u ra lly d efa u lte d
. E.g
. , Johns on v. Lof t us , 51 8 F
. 3d 45 3, 45 5 ( 7th Ci r . 20 08 )
. And whe n a8 N o. 08
- 1234 cl ai m i s pro cedural l y def aul ted, tha t b ars o ur r evi ew o f the c l ai m , unl ess the peti ti onercan dem onst rate both cau se for an d prejud ic e from the d efault or that a m iscarria ge of j u st ice w ill occ u r if w e d o n o t c on sid er h is c laim s. A nders on v. B enik, 471 F.3d 811 , 8 15 (7th C ir. 2006). I n th is c ase , W oo ds ra i sed hi s cl ai m s that t ri alco unsel w as ineffective f or f ail ing to c ha ll en ge K en ya W il son ’s abi l i ty to vi ew the cri m e a nd thatappel l ate co unselwas i neffecti ve f orr ai si ng o nl y a f or fei ted i ssue f orthe fi rs t ti m e in hi s thi rd post

- convi cti on peti ti on. N onethel ess , h e a rg u es th at th es e c laim s a re n otp ro c e d u r a lly defa ult ed beca use the appel l ate co urt denie d his feder al cl ai m s o n th eir m er i ts. In the al ternati ve, W oo ds ar gues th at h e ca n esc ape thatpro ceduralbarbec ause i t wou ld re sul t in a fund am en talm i scar ri age o fj usti ce, nam el y, “i n a convi cti on ofone w ho is actual l y innocent. ” G o nz a les v . M i ze, 565 F.3d 37 3, 38 1 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ) (p ar en th es is om i tte d). W oo ds does not ar gue “ cause” and “prej ud i ce” t o e sc ap e t h e p ro c ed u ra l ba r. SeeSchlup v. D el o , 5 13 U
. S. 298, 31 4- 15 ( 1995 ) ( disc ussi ng the di ffer ence between “ca us e and prejud ice” and “m iscarriage ofj us tice”). W oo ds ar gues that the I l l i noi s Ap p ellate Court deci ded th e m er its of h is fe d er al c l a im s w h en it su m m ar ily affi rm ed the tr ial cour t’ s deni alo fhi s thi rd peti ti on f or po st
- co nv i ct i o n r el i ef
. In s uppo r t, W o o ds r el i es o n o ur h o l d i n gi n Wilk ins on v. Cowan , 2 31 F
. 3d 34 7 ( 20 00 ) , a nd l an g ua g e we us ed i n Le wis v. St ernes , 39 0 F
. 3d 1019 , 10 30N o. 08
- 1234 9

T h e l a n g u a g e fr o m L ew is that W ood s rel ie s u p o n app ears 1 when we s um m ar i ze d the ho l di ng i n Wi l k i ns o n a n d sta te d : I n Wi l ki nson v. C ow an , 2 3 1 F
. 3 d 3 4 7, 3 5 2 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) , we he ld tha t w he n th e Illino i s A p p ellate C ou rt, in resp on se to a F i n l ey m ot i on, ha d noton l y gran t ed an a t t or ne y’ s m ot i on t o wi thdra w but also s um m ar i l y a ffi rm ed the di s m i s s al of the peti ti oner’ s post-c o nvicti on petit ion, the court had r e n d e r e d a me r i t s j u d g me n ta s t o e a c h o fth e c l a i ms a sse rt ed in th a t p et iti o n . L ew is , 390 F. 3d at 1030. ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4) , s um m ar i zingo ur h o l di ngi n Wi l ki ns on . 1 Both cas es add re sse d the di sm i ssa lo fpost
- convi cti on p etitions, w he n th e a p p ell ate cou rt grante d an att orney ’s F i nley mot i o n t o wi thd r a w. W o o ds r e a ds the m as sta nd i ng f or the bro ad propos i ti on that w hen post- convi cti on a pp el l ate c ou nselfi l es a Fin leym ot ion an d in resp ons e the ap p ell ate cou rt both grants the att orney ’s m oti on t o w i thdraw and sum m ar i l y a ffi rm s the di sm i ssa l ofthe peti ti oner ’ s pos t- convi cti on peti tio n, the cour t has r e n d e r e d a m e r i t s j u d g me n to n e a c h o fth e c l a i ms ass erte d i n that peti ti on. But a c ar eful exam i nati on o f th o se c as es s ho ws tha t o ur h ol di ngi n Wi l ki ns on was not as bro ad as W oo ds w oul d rea d i t. I n Wi l ki ns on we add re sse d a m uch differ ent si tuati on th an we have he re . There , the peti ti onerhad pres ented hi s federa lcl ai m s in hi s o ri gi nalpost
- convi cti on peti ti on t o the t r i a l c o ur t, a nd the y we r e s ummar i l y di sm i s s e d. Wi l ki ns on, 2 3 1 F
. 3 d a t 3 4 9
. He a pp e a l e d, and his a ppo i nt ed appe l l at e co uns elmove d “ to wi th dr aw wi th o ut10 N o. 08
- 1234 b rie fin g t h e m er its of an y of t h e iss u es r ais ed in t h e c as e.” Id. at3 50
. Pe ti ti o ne r di d no t fi l e ano bj ec ti o n, a nd the appe l l at e co ur t g r an te d the mot i o n t o wi th dr aw a nd su m m ar i l y a ffi r m ed the tr i alco ur t’ s de ni alofthe pe ti ti o n. I n re sponse to the hab eas peti ti on, the st at e a rgued that h is c laim s w er e d efa u lte d b ec au se h e d id n otag ain pr es en t hi s cl ai m s in a pr o s e m emor an dum r es po ndi ng to the m oti on t o w i thdraw or by fi l i ng hi s ow n br i ef ad d re ss in g t h e is su es h e s ou gh t t o a p p ea l. Id. We rej ec te d th e sta te ’s p o s itio n . Id. at35 1-5 2 (“ W e s im p ly rej ect the S tat e’ s co ntenti on that Wi l ki ns on can be c h a r g e d w i th a p r o c e d u r a ld e f a u l tu n d e r th e s e c i r c u ms t a n c e s . ” )
. B a s e d o n th e c i r c u ms t a n c e s o fth a tc a s e , we he l d tha t the a ppel l at e co ur t ha d b ee n pr es en te d wi ththe p e t i t i o n er ’s c laim s a n d h ad ad d re ss ed th em on th eir m er its
. Id. at35 2; s ee also id. at 350 (“In view of th e pa rti cul arway i n w hi ch the I l l i nois appell ate co urt dispos ed o fWi l k i n s o n ’ s p o s t
- c o n v i c t i o n a p p e a l, h o we v e r, we d o not believe th at he p roced ura ll y d efaulted th e ine ffectiven ess claim
. ”). I n Lewis we re j ec ted a peti ti oner ’ s cl ai m thathe ha d f ai rl y pr ese nted the appell ate co urt w i th two i neffecti ve as sis ta n c e o f co u n se l cla im s t h at firstap p ea re d in h is ob j ec tio n to h is a tt or n ey ’s m ot ion to w ith d ra w . Lewis , 390 F. 3d at 1031 ( “[ W ] e r ej ect the no ti on that a peti ti oner f ai rl y pr ese nts hi s federa lcla i m to the sta te cour ts w hen he r ai ses thatcl ai m f orthe fi rs t tim e i n an appel l ate bri efafterhi s la w yerhas fi l ed a m oti on t o w i thdraw un d er F i n ley .”). W e re fu se d to rea d ou r h old in g in Wi l ki ns on br oadl y a nd l i m i ted i t t o th e p reci se f actualN o. 08
- 1234 11

an d p ro c ed u ra l p os tu re of th at ca se . Id. a t 1 03 1 (“ L ew is co ns true s o urho l di ngi n Wi l ki ns on f ar too broad ly. ”). W e s t a t e d: A t m os t, Wi l ki ns on st an d s fo r the pr oposi ti on that w he n a state a p p ell ate cou rt elect s t o sum m aril y affirm th e j u d g men t b e l o w w ithout having invite d theappell antt o i de nt i

f y thei s s ue s hewi s he s t o pu rs ueon app e al , we wi l lc o ns true the a ffi r m an ce t o ha ve r ea ch ed th e m er its of ea c h iss u e t h at th e p et itio n er p ro p er ly r a i s e d i n th e c o u r tb e l o w. Id. at 1031 (em p ha sis add ed ). S i m pl y put, th e ho l di ngi n Wi l ki ns on cannot be di vor ced fro m i ts un iq ue f acts . A nd i t ce rt ai nl y di d not cr eat e a cate go ric alr ule thata deci si on i s m er i ts-base d w henever an appel l ate co urt gran ts a Fin leym ot ion an d su m m ar ily affir m s t h e t ria l co u rt ’s d en ial of a p os t
- c on vic tio n p et itio n . Su c h a b lan ke t h old in g w ou ld , in fac t, im p er m iss ibly re str ai n how st ate appel l ate co urts m ay dispos e o fcas es and m oti ons to w i thdraw: “W e hav e no pow erto te l lst ate cour ts how theym ust wri te thei r opi ni ons. ” Cole m an , 50 1 U .S. at 7 39 . A n d to p re sc rib e s u c h a c a t e g o ric al ru le in th es e i ns ta nc es woul d r o b th e state c o ur ts o fthe i r a ut o nom y. Id. ( “[ W ] e wi l lno t i m po se on st at e co ur ts the r es po nsibil ity for using p articu lar langu a g e i n ev ery case.”); a cco rd id. ( “A br oad pre sum pt ion would al so pu t t oo gr eata burden on the s tat e co urts . ”)
. T h er efor e, we rej ect W oo ds’ ar gum ent that o ur ca ses st and fo r the pr oposition th at an y tim e the ap p ell ate cou rt grants an att orney ’s m oti on t o w i thdraw and sum m aril y a ffi rm s the deni alo f12 N o. 08
- 1234

Bey ond the f actthata categori calrule i n such c ase s is i m per- 2 m i s s ibl e, the c i rc um s t anc es i n Wil ki nson are d isting u isha b le f ro m whatwe ha ve he re . I n Wi l k i nson , t he p etition er o nly fil ed one po st
- conviction peti ti on, the re were no prior orders di s pos i ng of hi s c l ai m s onc l ea r pro c edur al gr ounds , an d he d id n o t ob jec t to hi s a tt o rn ey ’s m o tio n t o w ith d ra w . Wi l k i ns o n, 23 1 F
. 3d at 3 49 . H er e, the appe l l at e c our twas di s pos i ng o f W oo d s’ third p etition fo r p ost-con v iction relief, W oo d s’ p rev ious pe t i t i on was di s m i s s ed a s pr oc edur al l y bar re d, an d he fi l ed two obj ec t i ons t o the m ot i on t o wi thdra w re s t at i ng his claim s. hi s pos t- convi cti on peti ti on i t i s a deci si on o n the m er i ts ofhi s federa lcl ai m s. 2 I n c as es s ucha s th i s o ne , w he re on the f ac e o fthe or der i t i s uncl earo n w ha t b asi s the st ate co urt dispos ed o fa c l aim , w e m us t m ak e a det er m i na ti o n o n the re c or d th at th e sta te c ou rtw as p re se n te d w ith
. Id. Sp ec ifica l l y, we l o o kt o the na tu r e o fthe di spo si ti o n a nd the su r r o undi ngc i r cumst an ce s to de te rm ine whethe r the sta te cour t re l i ed on an i nd ependent and a d equate sta te l aw gr ound in dispos i ng o fthe cl ai m , o r w he th er “the sta te cour t deci si on f ai rl y a pp ear s t o re st on federa lgro und s or i s inter w ove n w i th federa ll aw . ” Wil li s v. A ik en , 8 F. 3d 556, 56 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93)
. H er e, o ur r evi ew ofthe re cor d i ncl ud es the m otion to withdraw fi l ed by W ood s’ app ointed cou n s e l d uring the ap p eal ofhis third po st
- co nv i ct i o n pe ti ti o n. Wi l l i am s v. Washingt on , 59 F. 3d 673, 6 7 8 n .3 ( 7th Cir. 1995) (l ooking to state cou rt brief s to d eterm ine th e basis of th e ap p ell ate cou rt’s holding ).N o. 08
- 1234 13 The or ders denyi ng W oo ds’ thi rd post

- convi cti on p etition are un clear. Th ere are tw o tri al cour t orde rs dispos i ng o fW oo ds’ peti ti on. One i s a o ne- page tr anscr i pt thatbr i efl y a dd re sse s the f act that m osto f W oo ds’ clai m s cr i ti ci ze tr i alta cti cs a nd sho uld have been rai se d e ar l i er ; i t al so no te s th atW o o ds’ a l l eg at i o ns ar e unsupp or ted byanythin g m or e than hi s bl anket bites of d isap p roval. Th e othe r i s a m ere m inu te ord er. N ei th ers ta te s a ba si s f o r the hol di ngo r pr o vi des a ny re as on in g; th ey sim p ly c on c lu d e t h at th e p et itio n is dis mi s s e d a s fr i v o l o us a nd wi tho utme r i t . T he a pp e l l a te co ur t’ s o r dero ffer s l i tt l e m o r e: i t briefl y r ec o unt s th e pr o ce dur alhi st o r y o fW o o ds’ c as e and st at es tha t th e m ot ion to w ith d ra w is gra n te d an d th e tria l co u rtis affi r m ed. T he se o r der s do no t g i ve us much t o g o o n. B ut read in c o njun ction w ith allof th e surrou nd ing circ u ms t a n c e s o fWo o d s ’ c l a i ms , th e y i n d i c a t e th a tt he re soluti on o fW oo ds’ thi rd p ost
- convi cti on peti ti on ne ither rested prim aril y on fe d e r al l aw nor w as it int erw ov en w ith fed er al la w . C o le m an , 501 U .S. at 7 35 ; Harris v. R eed, 48 9 U.S
. 25 5, 26 1 ( 1989 )
. Rather, the appel l ate court sum m ar i l y a pp l i ed the sta te- l aw doctr i ne o f w ai verto di spose o fW oo ds’ cl ai m s. U nd erI l l i noi s l aw , “[ a] ny cl ai m o fsubst an ti aldeni alo f const i tuti onalr i ghts not ra i sed in the or igi nalo r an am ended p eti ti on is w aive d.” 72 5 I LC S 5/ 122- 3 ( 2008 ) ; s ee al s o Pe opl ev. Ande rs on , 874 N
. E.2 d 277, 28 8 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 2007 ) ( “[ I ] n the conte xt o fa succes si ve postco nvict ion peti ti on, the rule o fwaive r i s no t m er el y a pri nci ple o f j ud i ci aladm i ni str ati on, b u t, r ather, an e xpress re quir e-14 N o. 08
- 1234

m ent o fthe sta tute. ”)
. H er e, the appell ate co urt dism i sse d W o o ds ’ s e cond post- convi cti on peti ti on o n w ai vergr o un ds and noted thath e coul d not e scape the pr oce du ra lbar by est abl i shi ng cause or prej ud i ce. Si m i l ar l y, u n d er I l l i no i s l a w, a l lo fthe c l a i ms i n W o o ds ’ thi r d p o s t
- c onvi ctio n p et itio n w ou ld h av e b ee n d e e m ed w aiv ed : th ey all c on cer ned m att er s he w oul d have be en aware ofo n dir ect app ea l ( the f ai l ure to chal l enge the e yewitness tes ti m ony ofKenya W i l son) o r i n hi s fi rst p ost
- convi cti on pe t i t i o n ( the f a c ttha ta pp e l l a t e co unsel o nly r a i s e d a for feit ed iss u e). P eop le v. P iper, 651 N .E . 2 d 73 9, 74 1 (Ill. A p p . Ct
. 1995). W hi l e th e or der s di spo singo fW o o ds’ thi r d po st
- co nvi cti on peti ti on do n ot exp l i ci tl y invoke waive r or federa ll aw as a basi s fordeni al, the sol e grou nd ci ted by hi s a pp el l ate co unseli n the m oti on t o w i thdraw w as th at sh e “ c ou ld n otarg u e w h y p et it i o n er sh ou ld be all owed to pre sent these cl ai m s, w hen theysho uld have be enr ai se d i n h i s o r i gi na lpo st
- co nv i ct i o n pe ti ti o n, a nd th er efo re h e m ay n otse ek relie f in a su c c es s i v e p et iti on. ” N othi ng i n the ap pel l ate co urt’ s o rderdi scusse s how W oo ds coul d escape the pr oced u ra lbarf ori t t o re ac h th e m er i t s a n d d en y h is n ew ly p re se n te d bu t p re viou sly av aila b le c laim s. P eop le v. P itso nba rger, 79 3 N
. E.2 d 60 9, 62 1-2 3 (Ill. 20 02 ); see also An d e rs on , 874 N
. E.2 d at 2 89. To the co ntra ry, tho se or ders saynothi ng m or e than that th e p et itio n is d en ied
. Y lst v. N un nem a k er, 501 U
. S. 797, 80 4 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ( “ Th e e s s e nc e o f un e xp l a i ne d o r de r s i s tha t they saynothi ng. ”)
. A nd noth in g plus W oo ds’ specul ati on ofthe or ders’ i m portdoes n ot m ean that the di sposi ti onN o. 08
- 1234 15 f ai rl y a pp ear s t o re st on o r to be inter w ove n w i th fe d e r a ll a w. On this r eco rd, there i s no “g oo d rea son to questi on w hetherther e i s a n i nd ependent and adequate s tat e gr ound fo r the [ appell ate co urt’ s] deci sion. ” Cole m an , 50 1 U .S
. at73 9. Rather, the und er l yi ng Fi nl ey m o ti o n a nd the hi st o r y ofthi s ca se , i nc l udi ngthe f ac t th atW o o ds’ s ec o nd p e t i t i o n w a s d e n i e d o n w a i v e r g r o u n d s , a n d th e c i r c u msta nces surr oundin g th e deni alo fW oo ds’ thi rd post

c on vic tio n p et itio n co n vin c es u s t h at th e s ta te co u rt s d id n o t a d d r e s s a n d r ej e c t th e me r i t s o f Wo o d s ’ fe d e r a lc l a i ms i n h i s th i r d po st
- co nv i ct i o n pe ti tion. The r efo r e, we fi nd that W oo d’s cl ai m s o fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce o fap p ellate c ou n seland i neffecti ve ass i sta nce o ftr i alco unself or f a i l i ngt o c ha l l e ng e Ke ny a ’ s t e s t i mon y we r e n o tdeni ed o n the i r mer i ts b utwer e r ej ec te d o n th e i nde pen den t an d ad eq ua te state l aw groun d of w aiver. The sta te cour t’ s r el i ance on a n i nd epend ent a nd adequa te state l aw g r o und in de ny i nga c l ai m b ar s o ur re vie w . Sm ith , 565 F.3d at35 1; S t urge on , 55 2 F
. 3d at 611 ( no tingwai ver co ns ti tu te s ana dequa te a nd i nde pen den t s t a t e g r o un d)
. T o e s c a pe thi s p r o c edu r a lb a r, Wo o ds ar gu es that o ur f ai l ure to enter tain the m er i ts ofhis cl ai m s wi l l r es ul t i n a m i sc ar r i ag e o f j us ti ce , na m ely the c on vic tio n of an inn oc en t m an : W oo d s c lai m s t h at h e is ac tu al l y i nno ce ntofki l l i ngOm arW i l so n. Buta de fen dan t w ho ass er ts actual i nnocence as a re aso n to excuse a proce du ra ldef aul t m ust do m or e than i nvoke tho se w or ds, he “ m ust dem onstrate [ hi s] innoc ence. ” Buiev. M cA do ry, 3 4 1 F
. 3 d 6 2 3 , 6 2 6

- 2 7( 7 th Ci r . 2 003)
. Ind e e d,16 N o. 08
- 1234 he “ co m es b efo r e th e habea s co ur t wi tha s tr o ng

— an d i n the vastm aj or i ty ofthe case s co ncl usi ve

— presum pti on ofgui l t. ” Schlup v. D el o , 5 13 U. S
. 2 98 , 3 26 , n. 42 (1995)
. To re b u t t h is p re su m p t i o n , W oo d s m u st m ak e a cr ed ible cl ai m , supporte d by new, r el i abl e e vi dence ofhi s in nocence. Id. at3 24
. He muste st ab l i shtha t “in l i g hto fthe new evid en ce, no j uror, act i ng r eas onabl y, would have vot ed to fi nd hi m gui l ty beyo nd a re aso nabl e doub t.” Id. at 329. Thi s i s no t su cha c ase. W o o ds’ “ ne w” e vi den ce i s th e affi davi ts ofhi s f am i l y m em ber s. A l lo fthe affi davi ts w er e pr epare d year s after the m urder; W oo ds’ m othe r and bro ther

- i n-l aw ’ s were, i n f act , pr epare d seve n ye ar s a ft e r th e m u rd er . A n d th ey all n ot e w ith inc re d ible parti cul ar i ty the m ostpedestr i an detai l s o fthatni ght: the f a c ttha t t he y wa t c he d M arti n , a te W hi te Ca st l e, a nd W o o ds was t o l d t o g o t o bed a t a cer ta i n t i m e an d the time he fi na l l y c o m pl i ed. S uchr ec al lwoul d b e un d erst an d ab le if th e n igh t s to od o u t a s b ein g p ar tic u lar ly r e mar k ab l e a nd t r a uma t i c . Bu th e r e , f o r the W oo ds f am i l y a t l eas t, the ni ght was l i ke any o ther : i t was not unt i lt enda y s l at ertha t W o o ds wa s a rre st ed f o r the m urd er. W ei ghed ag ai nst the ey ew i tness te sti m ony ofKenya W i l so n, thes e a ffi dav i ts do no t es tabl i shtha t no “ r ea so nabl e f act finder would have f ound the appli cant guil ty of th e unde r l y i ngo ffen se ; i t i s bl ac kl et te r l aw tha t te st i m o ny of a sin gle ey ew itn es s s u ffice s fo r c on vic tio n ev en if 20 bi shops t es ti fy that the ey ew i tness i s a l i ar . ” Haye s v. B attaglia , 40 3 F
. 3d 935, 93 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) (inter nalquota-N o. 08
- 1234 17 ti on m ar ks om i tte d). Therefor e, w e fi nd that W oo ds cannot esca pe the proce du ra ldef aul t o fhi s fi rs t tw o cl ai m s.
B
. W oo ds has pr eserv ed one cl ai m f orr evi ew : wh ether hi s t ri alc ou nselwas const i tuti onal l y ineffecti ve f or f ai l i ng to cal lhi s br othe r H ar ol d W oo ds as an al ibiwitness. T hi s cl ai m w as prese nted in his fi rs t pos t- convi cti on pet i ti o n to th e I l l i no i s Appel l at e Cou r t, whi chr ej ec te d the cl ai m . Our r evi ew is l i m i ted to wh etherthatco urt’ s deni al of h is c laim w as an u n re as on ab le a p p lic a t i o n of cle ar ly est abl i shed federa ll aw . 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254( d). Thi s cl ai m i s a m i xed questi on oflaw and f act, and we re vi ew the dist ri ct c ou rt ’s d en ial d e n ov o. A llen v . Ch a nd ler, 55 5 F. 3d 596, 60 0 (7th C ir. 2009). A st ate co urt’ s deci si on i s “ contr ar y t o” clea rly e stablish ed fed e r al la w “if th e s ta te co u rtap p lies a ru le d i ffe r e n tfr o m th e g o v e r n i n gl a w s e tf o r th i n [ S u p r e me Co u r t ] c a s e s , o r i f i t d e c i d e s a c a s e d i ffe r e n t l y tha n [ th e Sup rem e Cou r t ha s] do ne o n a s eto fmate r i al l y i ndi st i ngui shabl e f acts . ” Bel l v. Cone, 53 5 U. S
. 68 5, 69 4 ( 20 02 )
. And a s tat e co urt’ s deci si on i s a n “unrea sonab l e a pp l i cati on” of cl ea r l y e st ab l i sh ed fede r all aw i fi t co r r ec tly i den ti fi es th e gov er ni ng l ega lpri ncip l e “ but unre aso nabl y a pp l i es i t t o the f acts o fthe parti cul arcas e. ” Id. In o the r wo r ds , Wo o ds m ust s how t h at the appell ate co urt’ s deci si on was “s o er ro n eo u s a s t o b e o bj ec tiv ely u n re as on ab le
. ” Bade l l ev. C orre ll, 452 F .3d 6 48 , 654 (7t h C ir. 20 06 ); R ayg oza v. H ulick, 474 F. 3d 958, 9 63 (7th Cir
. 20 07) ( noti ng the deci si on18 N o. 08
- 1234

W hil e that i s not the Str i ckl and st a n d a r d , th e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ’s 3 referenc e t o iti n the concl usi on w as m ade afterit had w ei ghed H ar ol d’ s affi davi tag ai ns tthe e ye witne s s i dent i fi c at i ons of K en y a an d T er re ll a t t ri a l. T h e p ro p er sta te m en t o f St r i ck l a nd ’s pr ej udi ce tes t a ppe a r e d i n the pr e c e di ngpa r a gr a ph
. W e h a ve noted num erous ti m es thatthe re i s no error w hen a courthas corre ct ly note d the St r i ck l a nd s tandard and the n used an i n co rr ec t sh o rt h a n d v er sio n w h en sta tin g its co n cl u sio n . E .g., S tanley v. B artl ey, 46 5 F. 3d 81 0, 81 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“Havin g ex pounde d the wel l -kn ow n s t anda rd c or re c t l y onthe (co n tin u ed ...) m u st fall “w ell ou ts id e t h e b ou n d ar ies of p er m iss ible d ifferenc es of opinion.” ( qu otation om itted ))
. H er e, the a ppel l at e co ur t corr ec tly a r ti cul at ed th e St r i ck l andst an d ar d : W oo d s m u st d em on st ra te (1) h is coun se l ’ s per f o r m an ce fel lb el o w an o bj ec ti ve s ta nda rd ofr eas onabl eness and (2) ther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty th atb utf o r hi s co uns el ’ s unpr o fes si o na le r r o r s, the re su lt o ft h e p ro c ee d in g w ou ld h av e b ee n d iffer en t. In add re ssing w hetherW oo ds’ cl ai m co uld m eet St r i ck l and ’s p rej u d ice p ro n g, th e c ou r t d e te rm in ed th at H ar old W oo d s’ a ffid av it on ly es ta b lish ed t h at h e d id n otrec all W o o ds l ea vingthe ho us e afte r 9 : 15 the ni g hto fthe m ur der
. The c o ur t he l d tha t th i s statem en t was i nc o ncl usi ve and w ei ghed very l i ttle a ga i nst the ey ew i tness es te st im on y a n d id en tific at ion s b y K en ya an d T er re ll. In affi r m i ngthe t r i alc o ur t’ s den i alo fW o o ds’ pe ti ti o n, the app ell at e co ur t ul ti m at ely he l d tha t H ar o l d’ s te st i m o ny “w oul d not l i kel y hav e cha ng ed the outco m e o f[ the] tr ial.” 3N o. 08
- 1234 19

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 previous pag e of it s opinion, it is m ore li kely thatth e court sta te d its co n cl u sio n im p re ci se l y t h a n th a t it ap p lie d a d iffer en t st a n d a rd .” (c ita tio n o m itt ed )). A pp l yi ng St r i ck l andto the f acts o fthe cas e, the appel l ate c o ur t ’ s h ol din go n thi s ma t t e r l i e s we l lwi thin the b o un dar ies of p er m iss ible d iffer en c es of op in ion
. Johns on v. H ule tt, 574 F
. 3d 428, 43 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09 ). A s a ge nera l mat t e r, a l ib iwi tne s s e s s ho ul d b e i nv e s t i g a t e d a nd c a l l e d, i fava i l abl e. R aygoz a , 474 F.3d at96 4; Sta nley, 46 5 F
. 3d at 813- 14. H owever, the appell ate co urt did n ot act unreaso n ab l y i n d e t e r mi n i n gth a tHa r o l d ’ s a l ib it e s t i mon y di d no t cr ea te a r ea so nabl e pr o babi l i ty ofa di ffer en t outco m e. A t t ri al, the j ud ge coul d have be l i eve d that H ar o l d di dn’ t r ec al l W o o ds l ea ving th e ni g ht o fthe m ur dera nd s ti l lf o und tha t W o o ds co m m i tt ed th e m u rd er : H ar old ’ s t es tim on y w ou ld n oth av e c on c lu siv ely est abl i shed that W oo ds w as not at Om ar ’ s HazelCres t hom e tha t night, and at tri a l, tw o eyew itness es is very stron g evide nc e of gu il t . T he refore, the ap p ell ate cou rt’s deci si on i s a r eas onabl e a pp l i cati on o fthe St rick l and st an dar d t o the fact s o fW o o ds’ c as e; a cc o r di ng l y, the di st r i ctc o ur t pr o per l y de ni ed W o o ds’ § 2 25 4 pet i ti o n.
III
. Based o n o urr e v i e w o fthe f a c t s a nd c i r c ums t a nc es s ur r o un di ngthe de ni a lo fWo o ds ’ thi r d p o s t
- c o nv i c t i on peti ti on, i t i s c learthatthe sta te cour t’ s deci si on does not f ai rl y a pp earto ei therr esto n orto be i n te rw ove n w i th20 N o. 08
- 1234 federa ll aw . Thus, W oo ds’ c lai m s that hi s a pp el l ate co uns elwas ine ffec ti ve f o r r ai singo nl y a f o r fei te d i ss ue and that hi s t rial c ou nselwas i neffecti ve f orf ai l i ng to ch all en ge K en ya W il son ’s abil ity to view the crim e are proce du ra l l y def aul ted. A dd i ti on ally, W oo ds has no t sh o wn th atf ai l ur e to co ns i der th es e cl ai m s wi l l r es ul t i n a m i scar ri age o fj usti ce; th er ef or e, we are pre cl ud ed fro m co ns i der i ng the mer i ts o fhi s cl ai m s. F ur th er m o r e, the I l linoi s Ap pel l ate Court ’ s r ej ecti on o fW oo ds’ prese rv ed i neffecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unselcl ai m rel ate d to hi s t ri al counsel ’ s failure to cal lH ar ol d W oo ds as an al ibiwitnes s w as not cont raryto o r an unrea sonab l e a pp l i cati on o f cl ear l y e stabl i shed federa ll aw . A c c or dingl y, the dist ri ct cour t pr oper l y deni ed W oo ds habeas r el i ef
. W e A FFIRM .

12- 9- 09