Petitioner appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court. The Illinois Appellate Court
affirmed the trial court’s judgment and further stated that Petitioner's brief “fails to
identify and argue even a single alleged constitutional violation,” Resp. Ex. E p. 6.
Thereafter, the Illinois Appellate Court denied Petitioner’s request for a rehearing.
Petitioner then filed a petition for leave to appeal with the Supreme Court of the
State of Illinois. The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois denied the petition for
leave to appeal.

Because the Illinois State Courts found that Petitioner failed to identify or
argue a single alleged constitutional violation within his petition for post-conviction
relief, the remaining claims which Petitioner has included in this habeas petition are
procedurally defaulted.

A federal court can review defaulted claims if the petitioner “shows cause for
failure to raise them at the appropriate time and actual prejudice which resulted from
such failure” or, “[a]bsent such a showing, a defaulted claim is reviewable only if
refusal to consider it would result in a ‘fundamental miscarriage of justice... .’”
Rodriguez v. Scillia, 193 F.3d 913, 917 (7" Cir. 1999), Petitioner contends that the
reason for his failure to raise his claims in the State courts are because of deficient
attorney conduct, Illinois’ obligation to effective post-conviction counsel, and
denial of access to the courts. A review of the record reflects that Petitioner’s
petition for post-conviction relief was considered by the Illinois Appellate Court and

denied due to procedural defaults. The Supreme Court having considered the petition



presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. §2254(d).

Procedural Default

A federal court will not address a question of federal law presented in a
habeas corpus petition brought to contest a state court ruling if “the state decision
rests on a state procedural ground that is independent of the federal question and
adequate to support the judgment.” Page v. Frank, 343 F.3d 901, 905 (7 Cir.
2003). In order to avoid a procedural default on a claim presented in a habeas
corpus petition the petitioner must “give the state courts one full opportunity to
resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State's
established appellate review process." Howard v. O'Sullivan, 185 F.3d 721, 725 (7
Cir. 1999) (quoting Q Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)).

Initially, Petitioner raised two claims on direct appeal to the [llinois Appellate
Court. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court on
appeal, but the Petitioner did not file a petition for leave to appeal that decision to
the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.

Because Petitioner failed to appeal the Illinois Appellate Court’s decision as
to the two claims raised on direct appeal, those two claims are now procedurally
defaulted.

Petitioner also raised claims in a Petition for post-conviction relief with the

trial court. After the trial court denied Petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief,



for leave to appeal and being fully advised of the premises, denied the petition for
leave to appeal. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991)(stating: “In
all cases in which a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in state court
pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, federal habeas review
of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and
actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate
that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of
justice.”) A state court’s finding of procedural default bars federal review if the
ground upon which the default was based is not “infrequently, unexpectedly, or
freakishly applied,” but is“firmly established and regularly followed.” Thomas v.
MeCaughtry, 201 F.3d 995, 1000 (7th Cir. 2000). Petitioner has failed to
demonstrate that the procedural default which was applied to preclude his claim
under Illinois law was the type that is sporadically applied. Williams v. Lane, 826
F.2d 654, 659 (7th Cir. 1987). Petitioner has also failed to sufficiently establish a
sufficient cause for his default and actual prejudice from such default. In addition,
Petitioner has not proven that there would be a miscarriage of justice if we did not

consider these procedurally defaulted claims.
CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, we deny the petition for writ of habeas
corpus.

May 19, 2004 Samuel Der-Yeghiayan
United States District Court Judge



Minute: One Farm (06/971

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
2
Ni Assign ig Sit a 4
saggeor Maghste | Samuel Der-Yeghiayan Other than
Judge Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 010 949 DATE $/19/2004
CASE Washington vs. McGrath
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3nd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly
the nature of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY;

(1) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) a Brief in support of motion due

@) q Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer bricfdue___-

4) ag Ruling/Hearing on setfor at

(8) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on_ set for at

(6) i) Pretrial conference[held/continued to] (set for/re-sct for] on __ set for at.
{() o Trial{sct for/re-set for] on__ at

(8) my (Bench/Iury trial] {Hearing] held/continued to at

9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agrcement/pursuant to]

OFRCP4(m) Local Rule 41.) CFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) WH [Otherdockct entry] For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum opinion, the Court hereby
denies the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. All pending dates and motions are hereby stricken as
moot, Terminating case. Enter Memorandum Opinion. The Illinois Attorney General is directed to serve a copy
of the Court’s opinion on the petitioner.

(al) ff {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court,

No notices required,

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

‘Natiticd counsel by telephone.

vf | Docketing to mail notices. Memorandum
opinion distributed in open Court...

Mail AO 456 form,

date smiled notice

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom:
MW deputy’s
initials

Nw
central Clerk's Office ‘maiting deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel,
ROBERT LEE WASHINGTON,

gonKeneD

war 2.0 Luu

Petitioner,
v. No. 01 C 949
JOE MeGRATH, Warden, Pelican Bay
Prison, and JAMES E. RYAN, Attorney
General, State of Illinois,

Respondents,

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SAMUEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge
This matter is before the court on Petitioner Robert Lee Washington’s
(“Petitioner”) 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons

stated below we deny the petition.

BACKGROUND
On April 24, 1996, following a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of
attempted first degree murder and sentenced to a term of sixty years imprisonment.
Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Illinois Appellate Court, First Judicial
District. On April 14, 1998, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed Petitioner’s

1


conviction. Petitioner did not file a petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
of the State of Illinois.

On April 2, 1999, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. On
April 16, 1999, the trial court denied the petition for post-conviction relief. On May
26, 1999, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court. On
August 15, 2000, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the denial of Petitioner’s
post-conviction petition, On September 16, 2000, Petitioner filed a petition for a
rehearing with the Illinois Appellate Court. On September 22, 2000 the Illinois
Appellate Court denied the petition for rehearing, On October 31, 2000, Petitioner
filed a petition for leave to appeal with the Supreme Court of the State of IIlinois.
On January 29, 2001, the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois denied Petitioner's
leave to appeal.

LEGAL STANDARD

A district court may entertain a habeas corpus petition from a “person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the grounds that he is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28
U.S.C, §2254(a). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C, §2254 a habeas corpus petition shall not be
granted:

on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
Court... unless the adjudication of the claim . .. (1) resulted in a
decision that was contrary to , or involved an unreasonable application
of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court
of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence

2