Opinion ID: 2776192
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Post-Conviction Petition

Text: Along with his state post-conviction petition, Jones presented an affidavit from Priest in which he called into question aspects of his trial testimony identifying Jones as the shooter. In the affidavit, Priest stated that on the morning of the crime, the police informed him that they had caught the man who killed Dunne, led him to an area where they asked him to view a man wearing a blue and white checkered shirt, and questioned whether he was the same man who killed Dunne. Priest stated that he could not see the man’s face because the lights of the police car were too bright, but he identified the man as the shooter because the police said they had other evidence No. 14-1638 19 implicating the man. As a result, he was not certain whether Jones was the man who killed Dunne. The circumstances surrounding the affidavit are murky, to say the least, as Priest had repudiated the affidavit even before the defense sought the post-conviction hearing. In its motion, the defense noted that Priest had retracted the recantation, but did so after receiving threats that his father, who was incarcerated in Illinois, would serve significant additional time if Priest did not recant. ECF 2-2 at 541. The state trial court denied Jones’s motion. He claims that this was a violation of his due process rights. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed this denial, and the Illinois Supreme Court denied his petition seeking review of this issue. Finally, the district court denied this claim as well because, instead of a constitutional issue, it deemed the issue to be a challenge to a state court’s interpretation of state law post-conviction procedures and therefore not cognizable on habeas review. Jones, 2014 WL 859532 at . To warrant an evidentiary review on collateral review, Illinois law requires a “substantial showing” of a constitutional claim. People v. Edwards, 757 N.E.2d 442, 446 (Ill. 2001). “No constitutional provision or federal law entitles a defendant to any state collateral review… .” Jackson v. Duckworth, 112 F.3d 878, 880 (7th Cir. 1997) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 557 (1987)). Here, we are disinclined to substitute our judgment for that of the Illinois courts, who did not view Priest’s recantation sufficiently credible to warrant a hearing. This decision was within the authority of the Illinois courts and did not implicate a constitutional claim. See People v. Steidl, 568 20 No. 14-1638 N.E.2d 837, 857-60 (Ill. 1991). Absent a constitutional claim, the district court was correct in denying habeas relief for the failure of the Illinois courts to hold an evidentiary hearing.