Document: 526 U.S. 838119 S.Ct. 1728144 L.Ed.2d. 1 135 F.3d 1194, reversed. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES119 L.Ed.2d No. 97 2048 WILLIAM D. O'SULLIVAN, PETITIONER v. DARREN BOERCKEL ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO STATES APPEALS FOR SEVENTH CIRCUIT [June 7, 1999] Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of Court. Federal habeas relief is available to state prisoners only after they have exhausted their claims in court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), (c) (1994 ed., Supp. III). In this case, we are asked decide whether a prisoner must present his supreme court petition for discretionary review order satisfy exhaustion requirement. We conclude that he must. 2 * 1977, respondent Darren Boerckel was tried Circuit Court Montgomery County, Illinois, rape, burglary, and aggravated battery an 87-year-old woman. The central evidence against him at trial written confession crimes, admitted over Boerckel's objection. jury convicted on all three charges, sentenced serve 20 60 years' imprisonment rape charge, shorter terms other two with sentences be served concurrently. 3 appealed convictions Appellate raising several issues. He argued, among things, should been suppressed because fruit illegal arrest, coerced, had not knowingly intelligently waived rights under Miranda Arizona, 384 436 (1966). also claimed prosecutorial misconduct denied fair trial, discovery exculpatory material held by police, insufficient support conviction. Illinois Court, one justice dissenting, rejected affirmed sentences. People Boerckel, 68 Ill. App.3d 103, 385 N. E.2d 815 (1979). 4 next filed leave appeal Supreme petition, raised first unlawful arrest because, contrary Court's ruling, when gave confession. contended erroneously possession police. appeal, subsequent writ certiorari. 447 911 (1980). 5 1994, pro se corpus 2254 United States District Central Illinois. appointed counsel amended March 1995. six grounds: (1) rights; (2) voluntary; (3) sustain conviction; (4) arrest; (5) received ineffective assistance appeal; (6) right Brady Maryland, 373 83 (1963), violated. 6 dated November 15, 1995, found, as relevant here, procedurally defaulted first, second, third failing include them 94 3258 (CD Ill.), pp. 10. attempted overcome procedural defaults presenting fell within "fundamental miscarriage justice" exception default rule. See Coleman Thompson, 501 722, 750 (1991). At hearing issue, argued actually innocent offenses which presented showed men were responsible crimes. concluded failed standards established Schlup Delo, 513 298 (1995), establishing exception, thus could bars preventing claims. Ill., Oct. 28, 1996), 14 15. After rejecting remaining relief, petition. Id., 18. 7 On Appeals Seventh considered question, namely, (whether rights, voluntary, sufficient verdict) raise those reversed judgment denying remanded further proceedings. 1194 (1998). required at, 1199 1202. Thus, according Appeals, 8 granted certiorari resolve conflict Courts issue. 525 ___ Compare e.g., Richardson Procunier, 762 F.2d 429 (CA5 1985) (must file review), Dolny Erickson, 32 381 (CA8 1994) (petition required), cert. denied, 1111 (1995). II 9 Before federal may grant prisoner, exhaust remedies words, give courts opportunity act before presents doctrine, announced Ex parte Royall, 117 241 (1886), now codified 2254(b)(1) This however, raises recurring question: What petitioner invoke requirement? Castille Peoples, 489 346, 349 350 (1989); Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 78 (1977). particular question posed case seek last resort has control its docket. 10 law provides two-tiered appellate process. Criminal defendants local circuit courts, although some criminal appeals (e.g., death penalty imposed) heard directly most intermediate court, Sup. Ct. Rule 603 A party decision (with exceptions irrelevant here), but "such will matter sound judicial discretion." 315(a). 612(b) (providing 315 governs criminal, well civil, appeals). elaborates exercise discretion follows: 11 "The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring court's discretion, indicate character reasons considered: general importance presented; existence between sought reviewed or another division Court; need supervisory authority; final interlocutory reviewed." 12 included To determine remedies, turn language statute. Section 2254(c) "shall deemed State . if raise, any procedure, presented." Although read effectively foreclose requiring possible avenue review, never interpreted requirement such restrictive fashion. 13 Wilwording Swenson, 404 249, 249 250 (1971) (per curiam). doctrine require repetitive petitions. Brown Allen, 344 443, (1953) (holding does "to ask collateral based same issues already decided direct review"). do extraordinary alternatives standard process where provided through past. supra, (rejecting suggestion invoked "any number including 'a suit injunction, prohibition, mandamus declaratory courts,' perhaps Administrative Procedure Act"). requires 351; Picard Connor, 270, 275 276 (1971). like obliged enforce law. Comity dictates alleges continued confinement conviction violates law, claim provide necessary relief. Rose Lundy, 455 509, 515 516 (1982); Darr Burford, 339 200, 204 (1950). rule comity reduces friction systems avoiding "unseem[liness]" district overturning without having correct constitutional violation instance. 204. Duckworth Serrano, 454 1, (1981) curiam); 516. 15 Because designed full invoking complete round State's Here, Illinois's established, normal procedure system. Comity, these circumstances, use procedures Unlike found unnecessary Allen normal, simple, part words statute, "the raise" state's highest §2254(c). Granted, contends, Brief Respondent 16, no "right That §2254(c) requires. 16 contests conclusion related arguments. His argument grounded stylized portrait According make primary focus system; routine error directed courts. contrast, serves answer "questions broad significance." 4. view derives from 315(a) reads discourage filing petitions allegations litigants meet criteria defined Rule. 315(a), own terms, "contro[l]" "measur[e]" discretion. free take cases fall easily descriptions listed Moreover, even assume discourages certain petitions, it difficult discern into "discouraged" category. example, parties disagree about whether, Reply Petitioner 5. 17 better reading consider merits. fact adopted system reflect little more than there resource constraints ability hear every it. It that, given necessity system, allows expend limited resources cannot Rule, unavailable. By errors instance, announce today interests drive doctrine. 18 second first. (through 315(a)) want error, offends inundating countless unwanted 14. F.3d, 1201. point, course, turns interpretation discussed above, find persuasive. Nor clear effect predicts. know, what percentage who eventually decline, 19 acknowledge ordinary potential increase filings recognize increased burden unwelcome wish See, re Exhaustion Remedies Post-Conviction Relief Cases, 321 S. C. 563, 471 E. 2d (1990); see Sandon, 161 Ariz. 157, 777 P.2d 220 (1989). Under increased, disserves underlying regard, note nothing our specific remedy 2254(c), fact, directs presented" (emphasis added). inquiry "available" sum, ignore providing available. hold creation not, more, pressed There dispute longer Boerckel; time long 315(b). failure timely fashion resulted U.S., 731 732; Engle Isaac, 456 107, 125 126, n. (1982). 21 Stevens' description default. Specifically, interplay doctrines. Post, As Stevens notes, evade thereby undercut values "letting run" remedies. avoid result, "protect integrity" rule, ibid., properly i.e., fairly post, Our disagreement differing answers Whether fails "no," Accordingly, 22 so ordered. Souter, J., concurring 23 24 25 26 concurring. 27 I agree strict holding unavailable" purposes exhaustion. Ante, understand left open (not implicated case) construe force State, effect, applications made plain petitioners South Carolina, declared: "[I]n post-conviction matters, litigant shall rehearing following adverse respecting error. Rather, remedies." (1990). 29 "nothing requir[es] available." 9. Its citation Remedies, proposition unwelcome, suggest something more: however plainly speak subjected constant form wishes reserve truly cases, else forced eliminate kind review. 30 construing requirement, "[w]e past." (citing curiam)). possibility likewise skip occasionally employed identified outside said purpose obvious either precedent otherwise. Stevens, dissenting 31 33 34 whom Ginsburg Breyer join, dissenting. 35 confuses analytically distinct judge-made rules: timing later III), seeking corpus; waiver, so-called default, applied Francis Henderson, 425 536 (1976), forecloses 36 Properly phrased, respondent's exhausted; clearly writ. place still hurdle path applicants least merits addressing briefly trace history separate doctrines improperly commingled. 37 "[T]he problem waiver "refers petition," ibid.; applicant get seeks If currently claims, interest comity, generally abstain intervening. time-honored developed decades always goal States' passing prisoners' guarantor apart rules waiver. 38 Royall judge's dismissing jurisdiction prisoner's application corpus. awaiting charges violated Virginia alleged statute unconstitutional. jurisdiction, nevertheless "discretion, discharge him, upon corpus, advance indicted." 253. convicted, await State. 39 clarified abstention principle Urquhart Brown, 205 179 (1907). stated "exceptional judge sometimes appropriately interfere action authorities great urgency," id., 182, involve authority General Government. Apart rare circumstances peculiar ex rel. Kennedy Tyler, 269 13, (1925), early consistently summarized Hawk, 114, 116 (1944) curiam): "Ordinarily detained crime entertained available, certiorari, exhausted." 40 1948 changed exclusive emphasis timing. year, "Congress citing Hawk correctly stating exhaustion." enacted granted" unless and, today, done "if 62 Stat. 967; 2254(d) "total exhaustion" is, dismiss brought 522. Conversely, applies satisfied. 41 sure, basis claim. But focuses entirely availability entertain Moore Dempsey, 261 86 (1923), cited approval 118, illustrates principle. Arkansas petitioner's discrimination asserted motion new "came too late." 93. But, claim, obviously refusal grounds did mean exhausted. When implicitly overruled years 722 (1991), grounds. explicitly noted "[a] meets technical requirements exhaustion; 'available' him." 732. 42 Neither argues him. recognizes circumstance, ante, 10, purports analyze "exhausted [his] court." Since believe subject 43 protect integrity crafted commonly known ensure become ineligible doing so. allowed obtain simply letting run adequate accessible then rushing animate thwarted. therefore remedies; how forms doctrine: concededly giving "opportunity pass [his claims]." deprived opportunity, save showing "cause prejudice," Murray Carrier, 477 478, 485 (1986), " fundamental justice' 495. 44 modern challenge composition grand comply trial. mention rather, stressed 'prompt assertion discriminatory practices make-up jury.' 541. 45 Similarly, 72 (1977), object admission inculpatory statement precluded entertaining proceeding involuntary. assumed 80 81. appropriate rested largely treating 'main event,' speak," making record "with respect recollections witnesses freshest, proceeding." 88, 90. 107 (1982), unquestionably defect instructions objection 46 Coleman, extended inmate's advanced denial days late. expressly satisfied "there [were] strictly deadlines briefs them. 47 hand, continually recognized, essentially again 6, conceivably far back (1953), offers procedures, review." requested judgment, Act, technically routinely state-court 48 presence absence exhaustion, tells us purely played role series decisions foreclosed challenges jury, evidentiary rulings finally, counsel's inadvertent progressively expanding best explained arose setting. objections impinge courts' correct, regarding of, legal errors. Engle, 128; Wainwright, Though reasoning unsatisfactory postconviction context, 758 (Blackmun, joined Marshall JJ., dissenting), analytical pervades today. connection III 49 come real issue case: current result defaulting raise. 50 barely question. Even though contends concentrates instead states 'the raise' [Illinois Court]." (quoting 2254(c)). adds unavailable." acknowledges almost immediately thereafter, [a court] past" assuredly makes unavailable case. resolves case's core single sentence citations: "Thus, (1982)." Ibid. 51 suggests way "respect rules" inquire (or would deny) abide 751. 129 (federal "undercutting rules"). follow appeal. felt strongly important stage harm results rules," 749, imposed death-row inmate brief just deadline. 52 Surely attempt it, entitled much respect. reasonable significance. Claims violations well-established rules, individual litigants, ordinarily 53 Discretionary effective tool apportioning resources, foster useful advocacy. recognized numerous occasions "process 'winnowing out weaker arguments focusing on' likely prevail hallmark advocacy.' Smith Murray, 527, (1986) Jones Barnes, 463 745, 751 752 (1983)). maxim germane helpful persuasive usually issues, spend considerable amount explaining why questions sweeping divided confused Given page limitations impose, write decides, required, might possibly warrant reversal 54 factors 1200 pointed proceedings res judicata once difference Gomez Acevedo, 106 192, 195 196 (CA7 1997) (which cites 168 522 523, 660 919, 927 (1995))). prepared stand behind passed No ground independently supports decisions, reaching resolved therein. 736 738. 55 defer appeals' state-law questions. Bishop Wood, 426 341, 346 347 (1976). refuses "discourages petitions" petitions), surmises desire itself 8. analysis strikes me unsatisfactory. would, consistent Circuit's view, dissuading fact-intensive fail deduce 56 unwise. impose burdens petitioners; delay completion litigation protracted be; ironically, undermine federalism thwarting administer dockets. If, repeatedly held, cultivate create obstacles rules. observations anything today's opinion: 57 "Boerckel snatch bar recognition inequity penalizing imposes tier Allowing selecting offend comity. 58 "We argue head. chosen asks selective deciding seriously hopes request §2254 result. 59 "Moreover, O'Sullivan's suggestion, 'obliterate federally secured incentive courts.' Br. 19. imagine induce attorneys government custody withhold knowing hurt potentially help cause. assumes remarkably risk-prone group attorneys, especially success rate low, greater corpus.' Judith Resnik, Tiers, Cal. L. Rev. 837, 894 (1984). accurately predicts incentives "Finally, reiterate concern '[t]reating omission conclusive trap unrepresented prisoners, whose efforts identify unsettled suitable preclude established.' Hogan [v. McBride], 74 [144,] 147 [(CA7 1996)]." 1201 61 regardless applying impedes access signals admits "disserv[e] comity" cause "unwelcome" influx takes Appeals' finding independent alternative situation. think future Thankfully, leaves dockets deluge undesirable Arizona Carolina done, 2, proper conception deference policy. accord allowing themselves federal-law §2254. not. And arrives key point relied explicit assert 63 compelling reason docket additional step disavowing my enough waiving right. 64 respectfully dissent. Breyer, 65 66 67 69 (who court) can depends preference. care), law? 732, (1991) (emphasizing habeas). similar States, except unusual circumstances. (1998); accord, Colo. App. (1998) (discretionary "only special therefor"); Idaho 118(b) (1999) (similar); Tenn. Proc. 11(a) (similar). majority's many scope prefer handle. 70 small similarly 1997, latest year statistics 1,072 (3.1%). National Center Courts, unpublished data (June 1999) (available Clerk Court). unique employing ibid. (in Virginia's 1,160 (2.6%); California 3,265 (1.2%); Georgia 189 (5.8%); Ohio 595 (2.7%); Connecticut 113 (21.2%); Louisiana 127 1,410 (9.0%); Minnesota 222 (17.1%); North 237 (9.7%); Tennessee 549 (7.5%); Texas 111 1,677 (6.6%)). contain preserve pursue add over-burdened often criticized delay. Cf. Hohn 524 236, 264 (Scalia, dissenting) (complaining "interminable delays execution sentences"). "demonstrates courts." (1982) concurring). 71 nonetheless optimism. Souter's expressed clearly. 2. creates presumption prior habeas, rebut expressing contrary. Other same. approach, reverse presumption. presume, statistics, expression contrary, mind Souter refers help. emphasize majority open.

Category: 0