## 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. 07
- 3704 D OI AKA H G RAY, P et it ioner-App el lant, v. M ARC US H ARDY, 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 . 06 C6058

—MatthewF. Kenn elly, Judge . A RG UE D A PRIL 9, 2009

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 12, 2010

Befo re M A NI ON, R OV NER, an d W OO D , C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Doi aka h Gray w as con vi cted o f fi rs t- degre e m urder i n the St ate o fI l l i noi s a nd se ntenced to a n e xt en ded- te r m s en te nc e o f8 0 y ea r s’ i m pr i so nm en tb a s e d o n the t r i a l c o ur t ’ s fi nd i ngtha tthe murder was a cc o m pan i ed bye xc ept i o na ll y b r ut alo r he i no us behavi ori nd i cati ve ofwanton cr uel ty. A fter the st ate c ou rt s d en ied co llat er al re lief, G ra y p et itio n ed for a w r it ofhabea s co rpus u n d er 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254. H e a rgued that2 N o. 07
- 3704 th e tr i alc o ur t vi o l at ed hi s ri gh ts unde r the S i xth a nd F o ur t e e nth Am e nd men t s b y i mpo s i ngthe e xt en de dte r m s en te nc e wi th o uts ubmi tti ng the unde r l y i ng fac tu al iss u e t o a j u ry , see A pp r e nd i v. New Jersey, 53 0 U
. S. 46 6 ( 20 00 ), and thathe was deni ed the effecti ve as si s ta n c e o f co u n se l. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd en ied h is p et iti o n. W e affi r m tha t dec i si o n.
I. On th e ni ght o fDecem ber2, 19 94, Gray, wh o w as seve nteen at the ti m e, vi si ted a bari n H ar vey, I l l i noi s, with hi s f r i en d Tr o y M o nt g o m er y . Also a t t he b artha t ni g ht w er e Gar y Bi lbre y an d D on Ri etv el d. Gray noti ced Ri etve l d’ s ce l l p hon e a nd de ci ded to s te ali t. Gr ayc o nvince d Rietveld and Bilbrey that he a nd M ont gom ery coul d take them to m eetw om en , and the f our m en left in B i l b r ey ’s t ru c k. A fte r th ey rea c h ed a n ea rb y re sidenti alnei ghborhood, Gra y d i re cted that they s top an d a sk ed t o us e Ri etve l d’ s ce l l pho ne . I ns te ad o fmaking a ca l l, ho wev er, Gr ayt o o kthe pho ne , j um ped o ut o fthe tr uck, and ra n. Ri etv el d chased afterGray
. Gray ra n a s hor t di sta nce be f or e e ncounter i ng an acquaint ance, Tom m y S m i th. Ri etv el d, i n pur su it o fGray, ar r i ve d s o o n a fte r . R iet ve l d a ppr o ac he d the t wo men, and Sm i th sho t hi m o nce i n the f or eh ea d. Rie tve l d fe l l to th e g r o und. S m i ththe n h an ded th e g un t o Gr ay, a nd Gray shotRi et vel d thre e o r f our ti m es i n the l eft s i de of the he ad. I n a wri tte n confess i on a fterhi s a rr est, Gray admi tt ed sh o o tingRi etve l d a nd e xpl aine d tha t he “fi gure d the w hi te du de knew m e f ro m the bar so I h adN o. 07
- 3704 3 to fin ish th in gs .” R iet ve ld d ied th e ne x t d a y . A fo re n sic exper tc o nc l ud e d tha ta nyo ne o fthe gun s ho two un ds w as suffi ci ent to ki l l Ri etv el d and that e ach co ntributed to hi s dea th
. A j u ry fou n d G ra y g u ilty of first -d eg re e m u rd er . A t h is sen ten cing h earing in D ecem ber 1998 , the t rialcou rt co nc l ude d tha t Gr ay ’ s cr i m e war r an ted m o r e th anthe gen erall y ap p li cab le statut ory m a x im um of 60 years b ec au se th e m u rd er w as “a c c om p an ied by ex c ep tio n ally br ut alo r he i no us b eh av i o r i ndi ca ti ve of w anto n c r uel ty. ” 7 30 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5/5- 8- 1( a) ( 1) ( b) , 5- 8- 2( a) ( 1) ( 1 9 9 6 )
. T hus the c o ur ts e nt e nc e d G r a y t o a n e xt e nd e dter m se ntence of80 ye ar s. Gray appeal ed hi s co nvi cti on a nd s en tence . H e a rgued th athe was de ni ed hi s r i g htt o a s pee dy tr i al, tha t th e pr o s e c ut o r s u s e d the i r p e r e mp tor y c ha l l e ng e s t o e xc l ud e Afr i ca n Am er i cans fr o m the j ur y, a nd tha t th e se nt en ci ng co ur t ab us ed i ts di sc re ti o n b y i g no r i ngmit i g at i ng e v i de nc e a nd pe na l i z i ng Gr a y f o r e xe r c i s i ng hi s ri ght t o tr ial. In D ec em b er 20 01 th e A p p ella te C ou rtof Illi n ois affirm ed G ra y’s co n vic tio n an d se n te n c e. Peop l ev. Gr ay, 76 1 N
. E
. 2d 1237 (I ll
. A p p . Ct . 2001). T he ap p ell ate cou rt rej ecte d on the m er i ts Gray’ s chal l enges to hi s co nvi cti on an d als o c on c lu d ed th at h e h ad w ai v e d r ev iew of h is se nt en ce b ec au se he di d no t fil e a po st
- se nt en ci ng m ot ion in t h e t ria l co u rt . Id. at12 40 -43 ; see73 0 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5/5- 8- 1( c) ( 1996 )
. Grayd id n ot seek l eave to appeal the deci si on t o the S up re m e Cour t o fI l l i noi s. Gray then obt ai ned new counseland fi l ed a pos t- convi ctio n p et itio n in s ta te co u rt . Th is t im e h e c h alle n ge d on ly4 N o. 07
- 3704 his sen ten ce. Gray argu ed that un d er Appr e ndi, wh i ch was d e c i d e d wh i l e h i s d i r e c ta p p e a l wa s p e n d i n g, t he tr i alco urt’ s i m po si ti on o fan e xtended-te rm se ntence b as ed on fac ts n otfou n d by a j u ry b e y o n d a re as on ab le doubt vi ol at ed the Consti tuti on. H e furtherco ntended th athis a ppel l at e co uns elwas c o ns ti tu ti o na l l y de fi ci en t given cou ns el’ s f a ilure to no tify the state ap p ell ate cou rt ab ou t Appr e ndiand i ts i m pact o n hi s s entence . Final l y, Gray ar gued that his tr i alco unsel had al so provi ded i ne ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce b y f ai l i ngt o fi l e a po st
- sen te nc i ng mot i o n t o pr e s e r v e hi s s e nt e nc i ng a r g ume nt s f or a ppea l
. The t r i alc o ur t r ej ec te d a l l thr ee c l ai m s, c o nc l udi ng th atGr ayclea r l y qua l i fi ed f o r the e xt en ded- te r m s en te nc e an d th at hi s co uns el ’ s f ai l ur e to ch al l en g e the se nten ce u nd er Appr e ndidid not co n s titute de fi cient perform an ce o r c au se hi m prej udi ce . The t r i alc o ur t th us de ni e d G r a y ’ s p o s t
- c o nv i c t i o n pe t i t i o n. Gr ay a pp e a l e d, pr i mar i l y a r g uingtha th i s s e nt e nc e v i o l a t e d Ap p r e ndi and w as excess i ve, but al so conten d i ng tha t bo th tr i al and app el l ate co unsel h ad provi ded ineffecti ve ass i sta nce. W i thout add re ssi ng Gray ’ s ineffecti ve- assist an ce cl ai m s, the A pp ellat e Court ofI l l i noi s a ffi rm ed the dism iss al of h i s p os t-c on vic tio n p et itio n . Peop l ev. Gr ay, N o. 1-04-1771, sl ip op
. a t 1 (Il l. A p p . Ct
. Feb. 17, 2006). The cour t a gr eed with Gray that, because the t ri al cou rt and not a j ury h ad f ou nd th a t h is actions w ere excepti onal l y b ruta l o r hei nous an d in dica ti ve ofwanton c ru elt y, h is e x te n d ed -te rm se n te n c e w as im p os ed in vi o l at i o n o fthe co ns ti tu ti o na l rul e a nno unc ed i n Appr e ndi
. Id. at5. N eve rthel ess , the court reaso ned, Grayhad “f ai l ed to ti m el y obj ect at tr i al, ” a nd thus the Appr e ndi e r r o r w o u l d w a r r a n tr e s e n t e n c i n go n l y i fth e c i r c u m-N o. 07
- 3704 5 sta nces m et the c ri teria fores tabl i shi ng “pl ai n er ro r. ” Id. a t6
. T he p l a i n- e r r o r do c t r i ne , the c o ur te xp l a i ne d,
“ ‘ al l ows a r evi ew ing co urt to consi der unpres er ved er ro r when ei th er( 1) the e vi den ce i s clos e, r eg ar dl es s o fthe s e r i o us ne s s o fthe e r r o r, o r ( 2 ) the er r o r i s se r i o us , r e g a r dl ess o fthe clo senes s o fthe evi dence. ’ ” Id. a t 6- 7 ( quo ting Peop l ev. He r r on , 8 30 N. E. 2d 46 7, 4 79 ( I l l
. 2 00 5) )
. The co ur t wento n t o c o nc l ude tha t G ray’s acto fs ho o ting th e una r m ed Ri etve l d a s h e l aywoun ded o n the g r o und was “ bo thde vo i d o fmer cya nd g r o ss l y r uthl es s” a nd so the Appr e ndivi ol ati on co uld nothave prej u d ice d Gray or “ ‘se riou sly affe c te d th e f a i r n es s, in te gr ity or p u b lic re pu tat i on o fj ud i ci alpro c eedi ngs. ’ ” Id. a t 7 ( quo ting Pe o p l ev . C r e s po , 788 N
. E
. 2d 1117, 1125 (I ll
. 2001)). Rat he r, the c o ur te xp l a i ne d, a nyj ury p r e s e nt e d wi th these f acts “would have f ound that the cr i m e was co m m i tte d i n a b ruta land hein ou s m anner, i nd i cati ve ofwanton c ru el ty. ” Id. F i na l l y, the a ppel l at e co ur t r ej ec te d Gr ay’ s ar gu m en t t h at 80 ye ar s w as ex c es siv e. Id. at9- 10. Gray peti ti oned, st i l l thr ough co unsel, f orle ave to appe alt o the s ta te su pr eme c o ur t. He a r g ue d tha t th e Appr e ndier ro r const i tuted pl ai n er ro r and that hi s 8 0- yea r sente nce was exces si ve, but h e om i tte d fr om hi s peti ti on an y clai m that his tri al orap p ell at e l a w y er w as ineffec tiv e. T h e s u p r em e c ou rtd en ied lea ve to ap p ea l. P eople v. Gr ay, 85 7 N
. E.2 d 677 ( Tab l e) , ( I l l
. 20 06)
. A fterthat d ec isio n, h ow ev er , G ra y m ov ed , p ro se , for le a v e t o file a l ate supplem en ta l peti ti on that incl ud ed the om i tte d cl ai m s o fi neffecti ve ass i sta n c e oftr i aland appel l ate counsel
. Gray expla i ned that he w i shed to p re ser ve the i ssues f or federa l col l ate ra l re vi ew . The cour t d en i ed hi m l ea ve t o fi l e th e su ppl ement alpe ti ti o n.6 N o. 07
- 3704 Gray then turned to the d ist ric t co urt. In hi s § 22 54 p et iti on he cl ai m ed that hi s e xtended-te rm se ntence w as im p osed i n vio la tion of th e rule of Appr e ndi, a nd that he r ecei ved i neffecti ve ass i sta nce fr om bo th hi s t ri al and app el l ate co unsel. I n re sponse, the sta te ar gued th at G ra y h ad p ro c ed u ra lly d efa u lt e d a ll th re e o f h is cl ai m s. A peti ti oneri n fed eralco urt m ust fi rs t e xhaust h i s s t a t e r e me d i e s b y f a i r l y p r e s e nt i n gh i s c l a i ms thr o ugh o ne ful l r ound o fs t a t e - c o ur tr e v i e w. 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 25 4(b )(1) ; B a ldw in v . Reese, 541 U .S. 2 7, 29 (20 04 ); Polev. Randol ph , 570 F.3d 92 2, 93 4 ( 7t h C ir. 20 09 ). M or eo ve r, if a s tat e co urt’ s a dj ud ica tio n ofa cl ai m r est s o n an ade qua te a nd ind epe nde nts ta te pr o ce dur alg r o und rath er than the m erits ofthe claim , the claim i s p roced ural l y def aul ted and a federa l co urt on co l l ate ra l r evi ew w i l l n otd ist u rb th e s ta te ’s jud gm en t. D retke v . Ha ley, 54 1 U .S. 38 6, 39 2 (2 00 4); Johns on v. Lo f t us , 518 F. 3d 453, 45 5 ( 7 t h C i r . 2 0 0 8 )
. P r o c e d u r a l d e f a u l tm a y b e e x c u s e d , h o wev er, i f th e pe ti ti o ne r c ans ho w bo thc au se f o r a nd pr ej ud ice from the d efault, or show th a t th e d istri ct cou rt’s f ai l ure to consi der the cl ai m would r esul t in a fund am e n t a l m isc ar ria ge of j u st ice
. D r e t ke, 54 1 U.S
. at39 3; Gonzal e s v. M ize, 5 6 5 F .3d 37 3, 38 1 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); Johns on , 518 F. 3d at 455- 56. He r e , the di s t r i c tc o ur tc o nc l ud e d tha tGr a y h a d p r o c edu ra l l y def aul ted the Appr e ndicl ai m . Graydi d not r ai se the Appr e ndiiss u e in t h e s ta te tria l co u rt, no r d id h e file a p o st
- s e nt e nc i ngmo t i o n t o p r e s e r v e the a r g ume nt, a nd , a s a r e s ul t, o n po s t
- c o nvi cti o n r e v i e w the I l l i no i s a ppel l at e co ur t r ev i ewe d the c l ai m f or p la i n e r r o r o nl y . The dist ri c t c ou rtfurtherco ncl ud ed that Gray’ s pro ceduralN o. 07
- 3704 7 defa ultco uld notbe excused. Grayco uld notsho w cause f orthe defa ult, the cour t explai ned, because he had f ai l ed to prese nt his cl ai m o fineffecti ve ass i sta nce o ftr i al cou ns el throug h on e com p lete rou nd of state -court r e v i e w. A nd i n a nyc a s e , the di s t r i c tc o ur tr e a s o ne d, Gray cou ld n ot show that he was prej ud i ced by tr i al counsel ’ s f ai l ure to prese rv e the Ap pren dia r g um en t gi ven tha tthe u nd i s pu t e d f a c t s s ho w tha t“ Gr a y s ho tan u n ar m ed m an in t h e h ea d atlea st th re e t im es w h ile th e m an w as lyi ng un con scious on th e groun d
. ” G ray’s ac ti o ns wer e “n o t spo nt an eo us , ” th e co urt expl aine d, b ut “de l ibe r at el y de si g ne d to elim i na te the v i ct i m a s a po te nti alwitnes s, ” m aki ng i t “ extr aor dinaril y unl i kel y” that a j ury w oul d not hav e found hi s be havi orto have bee n excepti onal l y b ruta l, h einous, and i nd i cati ve ofwanton cruel ty. The di st r i ctc o ur t ne xte xpr es se d do ubttha t Gr ay ’s “bel ate d atte m pt” to r ai se the c l ai m o fi neffecti ve ass i st a nc e o fa p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l i n th e I l l i n o i s s u p r e me cour t, afterl eave to appealal re ady h ad b ee n deni ed, was en ou gh to save th at claim from p roced ura l d efault. N everthel ess , the cour t went on to add re ss the ineffecti veassistan ce claim on th e m erits. U nd er St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 46 6 U.S
. 66 8 ( 1984 ) , a peti ti onerm ust s how that hi s co unsel ’ s defi ci ent perf or m ance caused hi m prej ud i ce. H er e, the dist ri ct c ourt concl ud ed that Gray’ s cl ai m f ai l ed f orl ack ofprej ud i ce. The undisputed f acts co nsi dered by the s ente n c in g j ud ge i n extendi ng Gray ’ s s entence , the di str i ct c ourtexp lai ned, “a re pre ci sel y the ty pes o ff ac ts I l l i no i s co ur ts ha ve f o und t o co ns ti tu te e xc ept i o nall y bru tal and heinou s beh avior. ” Th us , even i f G r a y ’s8 N o. 07
- 3704 counselhad ra i sed the Appr e ndii ss u e o n d ire c t a p p ea l, the cour t re aso ned, ther e w as not a “r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty that the a pp el late co urt w oul d have r eve rs ed G ray’s ex ten d ed -term se nt en ce.” A ccordi ng l y, the d ist ric t c o u r t d en ied G ra y’s p et itio n bu t g ra n te d h im a c er tif i c a t e o f ap p ea lab ility for a ll of his cla im s. See 28 U
. S. C
. § 2253(c)(1)( A ); F ED . R. A PP . P. 22(b)( 1).
II. W e r evi ew de nov o a di str i ct c ourt ’ s r uling as to pro ced u ra l d efa u lt. Sm it h v. G aetz , 56 5 F
. 3d 34 6, 35 1 (7th C ir. 2009 ). O n a p p eal Gray cha ll en ges th e d istri ct cou rt’s conc l usi on that he proce du ra l l y def aul ted hi s Appr e ndi c laim an d h is c laim s o f ine ffec t i v e a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l. H e furtherco ntends thatthe Appr e ndie r r o r a t se nte n c i n g an d h is a tt or n ey ’s fa ilu re to p re se rv e t h e c laim i n a pos t- se n te n ci ng m oti on o r to ra i se i t o n dir ect appeal caused hi m prej ud i ce. The sta te m ai nt ain s that Gray proce du ra l l y def aul ted al l o fh is c lai m s. A nd ev en assu m ing tha t G ray’s de fault w as c a u s e d by cou ns el’ s defi ci ent per f or m an c e, the sta te conte nd s, Graywas not prej ud i ced. U nd erI l l i noi s l aw , the sta te ar gues, the f acts o f th is m u rd er clearl y qu ali fi ed Gra y for an exte nd ed -term se nt en ce a nd, thus , the t r i alc o ur t’ s det er m i na tion o fthe m att eras o pp ose d to a j ury w as harm les s. W e a gr ee th atGr ay p r o ce dur al l y de f au l te d a l lo fhi s cl ai m s an d c o n c lu d e th a th e c a n n o t e s t a b lis h ei th e r c a u s e or p r ejud i ce t o excuse hi s def aul t. W e b egin w i th Gray ’ s Appr e ndiclai m . Th e d istri ct cou rt c on c l ud ed that the c l ai m was proce du ra l l y def aul tedN o. 07
- 3704 9 because the A pp el l ate C ourtof I l l i noi s on post
- convi cti on r ev i ew r es o l ve d the c l ai m b as ed o n a n i nde pen d en t an d adequate s tate-law gr ound w i thout re achi ng the m er i ts. I fa sta te cour t cl ear l y a nd expre ssl y s tat es that i ts j ud gm ent r est s o n a s tat e pr oce du ra l barand does not re ach th e m erit s o fa fede r alc l ai m , the n we ar e unabl e to c o nsid er th at cla im o n c olla te ra l rev iew
. Ha rris v. R eed, 48 9 U .S. 25 5, 26 3 (1 98 9); P ole, 57 0 F
. 3d at 937. A n d w e hav e r e p e a t e d l y e x p l a i n e d th a tw h e r e a s t a t e c o u r tr e v i e ws the c l ai m f orpl ai n er ro r as the r esul t o fa sta te proce du ra l barsuch a s the I l l i noi s d oc tr i ne o fwaive r, thatl i m i ted re vi e w d oe s n otco n st itu te a d ec isio n on th e m er its
. See M ira nda v. Le ibach , 394 F.3d 98 4, 99 2 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); R odrigu ez v . M cA do ry, 31 8 F.3d 73 3, 73 5 (7th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ); N e al v. G ram ley, 99 F .3 d 8 4 1 , 843 -44 (7t h C ir. 19 96 ); see also Lee v. D avis , 3 28 F
. 3d 89 6, 9 00 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) ( ex pl aini ng that the I nd i a na s t a t e c o ur t s ’ a na l y s i s o f a c l a i m fo r “fu n d am en ta l err or ” is , l ike “p lain err or ” re v i e w in I ll inois, not a review on th e m erits). H er e, th e Appel l at e Cou r t o f I l l i no i s cl ea r l y an d e xpr e s s l y r e l i e d o n the s t a t e ’ s d o c t r i ne o fwa i v e r t o de c i de Gray’ s A pp ren d i c l a i m. As the a pp e l l a t e c o ur te xp l a i ne d, un d er I ll inois l aw “a plain e r ror analysis app li es w he re a d efe n d an t ha s failed to m ak e a tim ely ob j ec tio n at tria l.” Gray , N o. 1- 04- 1771 , sl i p op. at6. Gray, the appell ate c o ur tc o nt i nu e d, h a d “ f a i l e d t o t i mel y obj e c ta tt r i a l, ” a nd , ther ef or e, the cour t r evi ew ed hi s Appr e ndicl ai m f or pl ai n e r r o r o nl y . Acco r di ng l y, the s ta te c o ur t’ s co nc l usi on that Gra y had not e stabl i shed pla i n er ro r w as not a dec i si o n o n the mer i ts , a nd thus we ag r ee w ith the di s t r i c tc o ur ttha tthe c l a i m i s p r o c e du r a l l y de f a ul t e d.10 N o. 07
- 3704 Gr aya tt empts t o c i r cumve ntthis re su l t bya r g ui ng th at I l l i noi s’ s w ai ver rul e coul d no t be used to bar h is cl ai m bec ause Appr e ndi w as deci ded du ri ng the pendency o fhi s di r ec t appe al
. W e ar e no t p ersuade d b y thi s ar g um ent. I n i ts deci si on, the appell ate co urt ackno w l ed ged that Appr e ndihad not yetbee n deci d ed at the ti m e o f Gr ay ’ s tr i al, b utr el y ing o n pr ec ede nte st ab l i sh ed bythe S upr eme Co ur t as wel l a s th e S upr eme Co ur t o fI l l i no i s, the app e l l a t e c o ur t r e i t e r a t e d tha t i t wa s s t i l l l i mi t e d t o a p lain err or rev iew of h is c laim
. Id. ( ci ti ng U nited Sta tes v . C o t t on , 5 35 U
. S. 62 5 ( 2002 ) ( applying pl ai n er ro r re vi ew t o u np r e s e r v e d Appr e ndiargu m ent, despi te f act that Ap p r e ndiw as d ecid ed du ring pe nd en cy of defen d an t’s di r e c ta pp e a l ) , a nd Cre s po , 78 8 N
. E.2 d at 1 123-2 4). Gray is correct t h at, in th e im m ed iate w ake of Appr e ndi, I l l i noi s cou rt s ini ti al l y decl i ned to apply the doct ri ne o f w ai verto A pprendi claim s un p reserved i n th e t r ialcou rt an d , in st ea d , rem an d ed t h e c as es for re se n te n c in g. See P eoplev. Swift, 78 1 N
. E.2 d 292, 30 0 ( I l l
. 20 02) ; P eop lev. L a t hon , 7 40 N .E .2d 37 7, 38 0 (Ill. A p p . C t. 20 00 ); Peop l ev. Ka cz m a rek, 741 N
. E
. 2d 1131, 1 1 3 8 -39 (I ll
. A p p . Ct
. 2000), a ff’d in pa rt an d rev ’d in pa rt, 79 8 N
. E. 2d 71 3 ( I l l
. 2 003); Peop l e v. Su t he r l and, 743 N
. E.2 d 1007, 10 15- 16 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 2000 )
. Butthe S upr eme Co ur t o fI l l i no i s ha s sinc e co ncl ude d tha t, r eg ar d l es s whethe r the de fen dan t was s en te nc ed be f o r e th e S upr eme Co ur t’ s r ul i ngi n Appr e ndi, the sta te’ s d oct ri nes offor fei ture and waive r apply, and, thus, i fa defe nd ant has notti m el y ob j ec ted i n the tr i alco urt, p lain -er ro r an aly sis ap p lies
. See Ka cz m a rek, 7 98 N
. E.2 d at 72 2; Peop l ev. Thurow , 78 6 N .E .2d 10 19 , 102 8 (2 00 3); Cre s po , 788 N
. E .2d at11 24. W e hav e a l so ackno w l edged thatanN o. 07
- 3704 11 Appr e ndi

- l i ke obj ecti on was ava i l abl e to d efendants ev en b e f o r e the S up r e me Co ur ti s s ue d i t s de c i s i o n, a nd , i nd e e d, defen dan ts b eg anmakingthe a rgum en t so o n a fte r the fed er al s en te n c in g g u id elin es ca m e i n t o b ein g. Va le nzuela v . U nited Sta tes , 2 61 F
. 3d 69 4, 7 00 n. 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 001); G a rrott v. U nited Sta tes , 238 F. 3d 903, 905-06 (7th Cir. 2001). M or eov er, Graycannotes tabl i sh the r equisi te cause an d pr ej udi ce t o e xc us e hi s pr o ce dur alde f au l t o fthe A pprendi c l a i m. Gr a y c o nt e nd s tha tthe i ne ffe c t i v e as si stance ofhi s t ri aland appel l ate co unsel

— in failin g t o file a pos t- sente nci ng m oti on o r to ra i se the iss u e o n dir ect appeal

— const i tutes cause f orhi s def aul t. But to use the ind ependent cons ti tuti onalcl ai m s o fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce oftr i aland appel l ate co unsel as cause to excuse a pro ceduraldef au l t, Graywas re quir ed to r ai se th e c l a i ms th r o ug h o n e fu l l r o u n d o fs t a t e c o u r tr e v i e w, or fac e p ro c ed u ra l d efa u lt of t h os e c laim s a s w ell. See Sm it h , 565 F.3d at35 2; Leev. D avis , 3 2 8 F
. 3 d 8 9 6 , 9 0 1 ( 7th Cir
. 20 03)
. Gray, however, def au lted hi s cl ai m s o fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce by om i tti ng them f ro m hi s c ounsel ed pet i ti o n f o r l ea ve t o a ppea l the d ecisi o n a ffi r m i ngthe d en i a l o fp os t-c on vic tio n relie f. SeeSm it h , 56 5 F
. 3d at 352. Gray ar gues that h e incl ud ed the i neffecti ve- ass i sta nce cl ai m s in hi s pro se “m oti on f orl eave to fi l e l ate supplem entalpeti ti on” fi l ed i n J une 200 7

— m o r e th ane i g ht m onths afterthe sta te suprem e co urt denie d him l eave to appeal

— and that thi s fi l i ng sa ti sfi ed hi s o bl i gati on t o fi r stful l y a nd f ai r l y pr es en t hi s cl ai m s f o r r ev i ew i n the st at e c ou rt . See O ’Su l l i v a n v. B o erck el , 52 6 U.S
. 83 8, 84 8 (19 99 ); Lew is v. Sternes , 390 F.3d 1 0 1 9, 1025 -26 (7th C ir.12 N o. 07
- 3704 2004 )
. But the I l l i noi s suprem e co urt re fused eve n to al l o w Gra y t o fi l e th e unt i m el y su ppl ement alpe ti ti o n, a nd i n another case we concl ud ed t hat a si m i l ar l y fi l ed l ate peti ti on was i nsuffi ci ent t o p re se rv e a cl ai m f or fed er al re vie w . SeeCa w ley v. D e Tel la , 7 1 F.3 d 69 1, 69 5 & n .8 ( 7th C ir. 19 95) ( hol ding that peti ti oner ’ s m oti on f orl eave to fi le l ate p etit io n f or l eave to app eal to Sup rem e C ou rt ofI l l i noi s, wh i ch the cour t deni ed, was i nsuffi ci ent t o pre s e r v e c l a i ms)
. Re g a r dl e s s , e v e n i f Gr a y man a g e d to prese rv e hi s ineffecti ve ass i sta nce cl ai m s f orfedera l re vi ew

—both as i nd epend en t g ro und s f orfedera l reli ef and as cau se for his p roced ura l d efault of th e un d erl yi ng Appr e ndicla im

— he can notestablish t ha t cou ns el’ s al l ege d err or s ca used hi m prej ud i ce. To es tabl i sh prej ud i ce a s a resul t ofco unsel ’ s purpor ted defi ci enci es at tr i aland on a pp eal, Graywould have to satisfy th e fam il iar stan d a r d of St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 46 6 U .S. 66 8 (1 98 4). See Wrink les v. B uss , 537 F. 3d 80 4, 815 (7th C ir. 2 0 0 8). U nd er St r i ck l and, Gr aymuste st ab l i sha r ea so nabl e pr o babi l i tytha t, b utf o r c o uns el ’ s e rr o r s, he w ou ld n oth av e re c eiv e d an ex te n d ed -te rm se n te n c e. See S t r i c kl and , 466 U .S. at 6 94 ; Johns on , 51 8 F
. 3d at 456. Gray m ake s t w o ar gum ents that he was prej ud i ced by counsel ’ s f ai l ure to ra i se the Appr e ndiar gum ent. W e no te, h ow eve r, thato n post- convi cti on r evi ew the sta te tr i al co ur t co nc l ude d tha t G ray coul d no t es tabl i shtha t co unse l ’ s per f o r m an ce was de fi ci en t o r tha t h e s uffer ed an y prej ud i ce. A gai n, ev en i fwe a ssum e that Gra y a dequa te l y pr es er ve d hi s cl ai m s o fi ne ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce , the tr i alco urt i s the o nl y s tat e co urt to h ave add re sse d those cl ai m s o n the m er i ts, and that rul i ng would be enti tl ed toN o. 07
- 3704 13
ou r d efe re n c e u n d er 28 U .S.C . § 22 54 (d ). Se eSa nde rs v. Cott on , 398 F.3 d 57 2, 58 4 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); Conne rv. M cBr i de, 375 F. 3d 643, 64 8-4 9 & n. 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. Both par ti es have f ai l ed to acknow l edge the r uli ng o fthe sta te tr i al cour t, and thus nei therhas f ra m ed the i ssue i n ter m s o f w he th er the sta te cou rt’s app li cation of St r i ck l andwas u n re as on ab le. See § 22 54 (d ) ; Johns on , 518 F.3d at45 6. In any c ase , ev en witho ut thi s a dd ed la ye r ofdefer ence, Gr a y c a nn o te s t a b l i s h tha th e wa s p r ej ud i c e d. Gr ayfi r stc o nt en ds th atc o uns el ’ s f ai lure to r ai se the Appr e ndicl ai m cause d him prej ud i ce b ecause atthe ti m e o f his d irect ap p eal th e I ll inois ap p ell ate court s w ere issuing aut om atic rem an d s for A pprendi er r o r s. The f ocus ofthe St r i ck l andte st f orprejud i ce, however, i s no t si m plywh etherthe outco m e would have b een di ffer ent; ra ther, co unsel ’ s s hor tco m i ngs m ust rend erthe proc ee d in g fu n d am en ta lly u n fair or u n re liab le. Wi l l i am s v. Taylo r, 52 9 U .S. 36 2, 39 1-9 3 & n .17 (2 00 0); Loc khar tv. Fre twell, 506 U .S. 36 4, 3 7 0
- 7 2 (19 93 ); St r i ck l and, 46 6 U.S
. at 68 7; D a vis v . Lam bert, 3 8 8 F
. 3 d 1 0 5 2 , 1 0 5 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 )
. As note d above , the I l l i noi s co urts l ate r re cogni zed that an Appr e ndi er ro r i s not str uctural and, as such, do es not re q u ire au to m at ic re m an d
. Se eThurow , 78 6 N
. E.2 d at 1 028. A nd co ntra ryto Gray ’ s a sse rt i on, the Suprem e C ou rt has consi ste ntl y hel d that “ the l i kel i h oo d o fa differ ent o utco m e at tr ibut ab l e to a n i nc o r rect i nt er pr et at i o n o fthe law” does no t co nsti tute “the l egi ti m ate ‘ prej ud i ce’ ” requ ired u nd er St r i ck l and
. Wi l l i a ms , 5 29 U
. S
. a t 39 2 ( ci ting Fre twell, 506 U
. S. at 372). G r a y t h er efo re ca n n otp re va il base d on the I l l i noi s co urts ’ m i sta ken j uri sprudence at14 N o. 07
- 3704 th e t im e o f h is a p p ea l. S e e Wi l l i ams , 52 9 U.S
. at39 2; Fre twell, 50 6 U.S
. at37 0; St r i ck l and, 46 6 U.S
. at69 5. Gray’ s s eco nd at tem pt to show prej ud i ce i s a l so unavai l i ng. Grayco ntends thathad hi s a pp ella te counsel ra i sed the Appr e ndicla i m , th e a p p ella te co u rtw ou ld ha ve v ac at ed the e xt en ded- te r m s en te nc e be ca us e th e evi dence pres ented i n the tr i alcou rt d id not e stabl i sh th athe e xhibi ted exc ept i o na l l y b r ut alo r he i no us b eh av ior in d ica tiv e o f w an to n cr u elt y. See 73 0 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5/5-8

- 1( a) ( 1) ( b)
. A t the ti m e o fGray ’ s s entenci ng, I l l i no i s l a w pe r mi t t e d the i mpo s i t i o n o fa n e xtende dte rm se n te n c e a b ov e t h e o ther w i se ap p lica b le st atut o r y maxi m um f o r first- deg r ee murde r “ i fthe c o ur tfi nd s tha tthe mur de r wa s a c c o mpa ni e d b y e xc e pti onal l y b ruta l o r hei nous be havi ori nd i cati ve ofw an ton cruel ty. ” 7 30 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5/5 -8-1( a) ( 1) ( b) , 5- 8- 2( a) ( 1) ( 19 96 )
. The I l l i no i s l eg i sl atur e ha s since am ended th e st atut e to co m pl y wi th Appr e ndi, a nd, a cc o r di ng l y, the sta tute now r equi re s the “t rie r of f act” to m ake the necessar y fi nd i ngs “bey ond a re aso nabl e doubt. ” 730 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5/5- 8- 1( a) ( 1) ( b ) ( 2002 ) ; s eePub. A ct No. 91
- 953, 20 00 I l l
. L aw s 2269 ( eff
. Fe b. 23 , 20 01)
. There i s no di spute th at G ray’s sent en cing violated the d ic t a tes of Appr e ndi, buti n l i g hto fthe e vi den ce pr es en te d a t tr i al, the que st i on i s whether a r eas onabl e pr obab i l i ty exi sts that the a pp el l ate co urt w oul d h ave concl ud ed, o n harm l ess er ro r re vie w , th at a p ro p e r l y in st ru c te d j u ry co u ld ha ve f o und Gr ayi ne l i g ibl e f o r a n ex ten ded- te r m s en t e n c e . Aft e r a r ev i ew o fth e a p p l i c a b l e I l l i n o i s c a s e l a w, w e hav e no doubt that the appel lat e co urt w oul d have fou n d th e erro r h ar m les s an d th at G ra y’s ac tio n s c o n st i-N o. 07
- 3704 15 tuted “e xcepti onal l y b ruta lor h einous behavi ori nd i cat i v e o fwa n t o n c r u e l t y, ” a s a ma t t e r o fI l l i n o i s l a w. U nd erIl lin ois l aw “br utal ” be havi ori s defi ned as that w hi ch i s “ ‘ gr oss l y r uthl ess , devoi d ofm er cy orco m passi on; cr uel and col d-bl oo ded
. ’ ” Kaczmarek, 7 98 N
. E.2 d at 723 ( ci ti ng Peop l ev. N i e l s on , 7 18 N
. E
. 2d 1 31, 148 ( I ll
. 1999)); see P eople v . N itz , 8 48 N. E. 2d 98 2, 9 94 ( I l l
. 2 00 6)
. Hei no us behavi ori s defi ned as b ehavio r that i s “ hatefull y o r sh oc kin gly ev il; g r o ss ly b ad ; en or m ou sly an d flag ra n tly cri m i nal
. ” Ka cz m a rek, 798 N
. E.2 d at 7 23 ( ci ti ng N i e l s on , 718 N
. E.2 d at 1 48)
. Fin ally , t he be havi orm ust a l so be in d i cati ve ofwanton cr uel ty, wh i ch “r equi re s pro ofthat th e defen dan t co ns ciousl y s o ug htt o i nfl i ctpa i n a nd su ff er i ng o n the vi cti m o fthe offense. ” Id. ( ci ti ng N i e l s on , 718 N
. E. 2d at1 48 )
. The de fen dan t’ s hi st o r y o fv i o l en t crim e, p rem ed itation, an d exp re s sion of r em orse are als o fa c to rs for c on sid er at ion
. SeePe op l ev . An dre ws , 54 8 N .E .2d 10 25 , 103 2 (Ill. 19 89 ); P eople v. La P ointe, 43 1 N
. E.2 d 344, 353 (I ll
. 1981). Gr ayc ha l l en g es the “ want o n c r ue l ty ” el ement; he co nt en ds th atthe s ta te di d n ot establ i shtha t he “ co nsc iou sly so u gh t t o in flict p ain an d s u ffer in g” on h is vic tim
. N itz , 8 48 N. E
. 2d a t 9 94
. Gr aya r g ue s th ats ucha fi nd i ng i s i m possibl e her e be c au se the s tat e pr ese nted no e vi dence to s h ow how m uch ti m e e l apsed bet w een the fi rs t s hot fi re d b y S m i th and Gray’ s a dd i ti onalsho ts orthatthe w ounded Ri etv el d w as c onscio us orco uld s ee Gray w hen he fi re d the g un. A s s up portf orhi s a rgum ent, Gr ayr el i es o n P eop le v. A lva rez , 79 9 N
. E.2 d 694, 69 8, 70 7- 08 ( I l l
. App. Ct
. 2 00 3) , i n whi chthe a pp ell ate co ur t co nc l u d e d tha t an Appr e ndierror w as no t harm less w he re16 N o. 07
- 3704 th e defen dan t appr o ac he d t he vi ct i m fr o m b eh i nd a nd shot hi m once i n the back of the head. Gray also cit es Peop l ev. Rodr iguez , 6 55 N
. E.2 d 1022, 10 33 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 1995 ), in w hich the cou rt rej ecte d an ex ten d ed -term sente nce be cause the m urder coul d not be char acte ri zed as a “s low , ex te n d ed , an d ex tr em ely p ain fu l p ro c es s.” Inth e ov er w h elm in g m ajorit y of c as es , h ow ev er , I llin ois c o ur t s h a v e u ph e l d the a pp l i c a t i o n ofane xt e nd e dterm sent en ce for sim il ar exe cu tion-style m urd ers, p arti cul ar l y where th e victi m i s hel ple ss and w ounded by so m e i ni ti ala ct . I n Peop l ev. Si m m ons , th e a pp el l ate cour t co ncl ud ed that the A pprendi er ro r w as harm l ess w h er e t h e v ict im w as firs t sh ot b y an ot h er p er so n an d fell to the g r o und, a nd the de fen dan t th ens to o d o ve r the w o unde d v i ct i m a nd s ho t hi m o nc e i n the b ac ko fthe he ad. 7 94 N. E. 2d 99 5, 1 00 2- 03 ( I l l
. App. C t. 2 00 3)
. The cou r t e x p lai ne d that i t had “no d ou bt th at th e j ury w oul d have f ound that the m urder defe nd ant co m m i tte d was a ccom p ani ed bye xc ept i o na l l y b r ut alo r he i no us be ha vi o r i ndi ca ti ve o fwant o n c r ue l ty, ” si nc e th e “de fen d an t k i l l e d th e w ou n d ed vic tim in a n ex ec u tio n -st yle m an ner. ” Id. a t 10 03
. S i m i l ar l y, i n Peop l ev. Fa unt l e r oy , t he cour t uphel d an exte nd ed-ter m se ntence

— des pi te the defen dan t’ s l ac ko fpr emedi tati on o r hi st o r y o fv i o l en t c r i me

—base d o n the “one key f act” that the ki l l in g “ w as an exec uti on s tyl e m u rd er, with the vi cti m being sho t thre e t i m es i n the backo fthe h ea d afterbeing knocke d to th e grou nd
. ” 586 N
. E
. 2d 292, 300 ( I ll
. A p p . C t. 1992 ). A d d itio n all y , in th os e c as es inv olv in g t h e e x ec u tio n -st yle m urder ofa w ounded vi cti m , Illinoi s co urts have not r equi r ed an y sh o wi ngtha t th e vi ct i m r emai ne d c o ns ci o usN o. 07
- 3704 17 f orthe fi nal sho ts, norhave theyf ocuse d on the du ra tio n of t h e e n tir e a tt ac k. Se e, e . g. , P eop le v. Tenn ey, 80 7 N
. E.2 d 705, 71 7 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 20 04) ( hol ding that Appr e ndi e r r o r wa s h a r ml e s s wh e r e de fe nd a ntr e c e i v e d e xt e nd e dt e r m s e n t e n c e f o r s h o o t i n gv i c t i m o n c e a n d i mm edi ate l y di re cti ng ac com pli ce t o fini sh the j ob w i th tw o c los e-r an ge gu n sh o ts to th e h ea d ); P eoplev. H il l , 69 1 N
. E. 2d 79 7, 8 00 , 8 06 ( I l l
. App. Ct
. 1 99 8) ( upho lding extended-t er m sente nce w here defe nd ant fi rst p ushed vi cti m , causi n g h er to hi t herhead and f al l unconsci ous, an d then cut her th roat w hile she lay un con sci o u s); P eo p lev. Wil li s , 7 0 2 N. E. 2 d 6 1 6 , 6 2 8
- 2 9 ( I l l
. App
. Ct
. 1 998) ( upho l di nge xt en ded- te rm s en te nc e wher e defen dan t stood over f all en victim and shot h im m ultiple tim es); P e o p l ev . Wi l l i a ms , 67 3 N
. E.2 d 1169, 11 75 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 19 96) ( upho l di nge xt en ded- ter m s en te nc e wher e defen dan t shotvi cti m tw i ce then, afterso m e t i m e, sho t hertwice m ore for “ no ap p aren t rea son ” w hile vi ctim w as stillali ve). Gray al so conte nd s that hi s s tat em ent t o pol i ce

— th athe bel i eve d he had to el i m i nate Rie tve l d as a pote nti al w i tness

— shows panic i nstea d ofpre m edi tat i on, and that h is p an ic a n d h is m in im al c rim in al h ist or y m ak e it unli kely th at a j ury w oul d have co ncl ud ed that he deser ved an e xtended-te rm se n tence. But the sta te ap p ella te co u rtrejec te d a n ea rly id en tic al a rg u m e n t in P eop le v. P a yn e w here the v i cti m was acci dental l y s hot by anothe r, and the defe nd ant then ki l l ed the w ou nd ed vi cti m by sho oting hi m twice from b eh i nd
. 68 9 N
. E.2 d 631, 636-37 (Ill. A p p . Ct
. 1998). In th at cas e, th e cou rt ac k no wl edge d tha t “u nf o r es ee n de ve l o pm en ts l ed defen d an t to conc lud e tha t it w as ne ce s s a r y to com m it m ur-18 N o. 07
- 3704 der” and that the defendant’s c onduct ar guabl y “ did not
‘ go beyo nd the m er e infl i cti on o fdeath. ’ ” Id. ( quo ti ng Peop l ev. Ratzke, 625 N
. E
. 2d 1004, 1016 (I ll
. A p p . Ct
. 1993)). N eve rthel ess , the cour t a ffi rm ed the ap pli cati on o fan e xt e nd e d- t e r m s e nt e nc e , e mpha s i z i ngtha ta “ ‘ c o l dbl o o ded ex ecution’ afte r a r o bb er y, j us t to c o ve r up th e f act that the v i cti m knew the defendant, can const i tute excepti onal l y b rutal o r hei nous be havi ori nd i cati ve of w anton cruel ty .” Id. at 637. I n sum , we have no doubt that had Gray ’ s a pp ellat e counselr ai sed the cl ai m , the appell at e cour t would have f ound the A pprendi er ro r h ar m les s be c au se a p ro p er ly i nstr ucted j ury w oul d have f ound that, a s a m att ero f Illino is law , G ra y’s ac tio n s c on s tit u te d ex c ep tio n ally b r ut a l o r h e i no us b e ha v i o r i nd i c a t i v e o fwa nt o n c r uel ty. As a re s ul tGr a y do e s n o tme e tthe e xa c t i ngs t a nd a r ds f orr el i efunder § 2254
. Gray has proce du ra l l y def aul ted e a c h o fh i s c l a i ms. And e v e n i fw e w er e t o c o nc l ud e that he has adequatel y pr ese rv ed hi s cl ai m s o fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel f or fe d eralr evi ew , he c annot show that c ou nsel ’ s f ai l ure to ra i se the Appr e ndier ro r caused hi m prej ud i ce.
III. A ccor dingl y, we A FFIRM the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct cour t.

3- 12- 10