Opinion ID: 3002646
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Procedural Default; Adequate and Independent

Text: State Ground At the time of Sturgeon’s pretrial proceedings, Illinois law mandated a competency hearing if the defendant was taking psychotropic drugs. 725 ILL. C OMP. S TAT. 5/10421 (1994);2 People v. Guttierez, 648 N.E.2d 928, 931-32 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). Independent of section 104-21, however, Illinois law also requires a competency hearing if “a bona fide doubt of the defendant’s fitness is raised.” 725 ILL. C OMP. S TAT. 5/104-11(a). Though both provisions are 2 That version of the statute provided: “A defendant who is receiving psychotropic drugs or other medications under medical direction is entitled to a hearing on the issue of his fitness while under medication.” 725 I LL . C OMP . S TAT . 5/104-21 (1994). The provision now reads: “A defendant who is receiving psychotropic drugs shall not be presumed to be unfit to stand trial solely by virtue of the receipt of those drugs or medications.” Id. 5/104-21 (2008); see also People v. Hill, 697 N.E.2d 316, 325 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (noting the changes in statutory language). 8 No. 06-3934 designed to protect a prisoner’s right not to stand trial unless mentally competent, only section 104-11 protects a constitutional right. See Robinson, 383 U.S. at 385. The section 104-21 hearing, which was required if the defendant was taking psychotropic drugs, “is merely a statutory right granted by the legislature.” People v. Mitchell, 727 N.E.2d 254, 265 (Ill. 2000). The Illinois Appellate Court held that Sturgeon’s section 104-21 claim was not cognizable on collateral review because it was merely a statutory right. People v. Burt, 792 N.E.2d 1250, 1257 (Ill. 2001); see also Burt v. Uchtman, 422 F.3d 557, 567 (7th Cir. 2005). Sturgeon does not challenge this ruling. Instead, Sturgeon advances a more general due- process claim based on section 104-11 and the alleged existence of a bona fide doubt as to his competency to proceed. Before Sturgeon may present this claim to the federal courts, he must first have exhausted all available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). This required Sturgeon to fully and fairly present all his federal claims to each level of review in the state system. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004); Chambers v. McCaughtry, 264 F.3d 732, 737 (7th Cir. 2001). “The petitioner must have placed both the operative facts and the controlling legal principles before the state courts. A mere passing reference to a constitutional issue certainly does not suffice.” Chambers, 264 F.3d at 738 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). The argument must be placed in the petitioner’s brief to the court; the “requirement is not met if a judge must go outside the four corners of the document in order to understand the contention’s nature and basis.” Lockheart v. Hulick, 443 F.3d 927, 929 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Baldwin, 541 U.S. 27). No. 06-3934 9 Sturgeon’s state postconviction documents are hardly the model of clarity. On numerous occasions he references his rights under both sections 104-11 and 10421 without distinguishing between the two. However, at each level of the state’s postconviction proceedings, Sturgeon cited both standards (based on “bona fide doubt” as to his competency, and alternatively, his receipt of psychotropic drugs) and identified enough case law to put the court on notice that he was asserting his federal due-process right to a fitness hearing as well as a statutory claim. During the hearing on the state’s motion to dismiss his postconviction petition, Sturgeon’s counsel drew the court’s attention to Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (holding that the “bona fide doubt” standard adequately protects a prisoner’s due-process right to be tried only if mentally fit), and reiterated the applicability of the “bona fide doubt” standard. Sturgeon did the same in his brief to the Illinois Appellate Court, and he repeated these arguments in his petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. This is enough (though barely) to satisfy his obligation to fairly present his due-process claim to all levels of the state-court system. Accordingly, this claim was not procedurally defaulted. The Illinois Appellate Court held that Sturgeon waived his claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel because he did not raise it on direct appeal. When reviewing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a federal court will not review a question of federal law if the state decision rested on an adequate and independent state ground for dismissal, including a state procedural rule. Page v. Frank, 343 F.3d 901, 905 (7th Cir. 2003). A finding 10 No. 06-3934 of waiver by the state postconviction court is enough to establish an adequate and independent state ground. Daniels v. Knight, 476 F.3d 426, 431 (7th Cir. 2007). Under Illinois law, “[f]ailure to raise a claim which could have been addressed on direct appeal is a procedural default which results in a bar to consideration of the claim’s merits in a post-conviction proceeding.” People v. Erickson, 641 N.E.2d 455, 458 (Ill. 1994). An exception applies to this general rule “in instances where the facts relating to the claim do not appear on the face of the original appellate record.” People v. Whitehead, 662 N.E.2d 1304, 1312 (Ill. 1996). “[I]t is not so much that such a claim could not have been presented or raised by a party on direct appeal, but rather that such a claim could not have been considered by the reviewing court because the claim’s evidentiary basis was de hors the record.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Schaff v. Snyder, 190 F.3d 513, 524-25 (7th Cir. 1999). It is undisputed that Sturgeon did not raise his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct review. Sturgeon argues, however, that the state decision is not based on an adequate and independent state ground because the state court did not acknowledge the “extra record evidence” he submitted on his postconviction motion—namely, a psychiatrist’s affidavit and his mentalhealth records from Cermak Hospital. However, the exception applies only where the evidentiary basis for the claim is outside the record. By Sturgeon’s own admission, the evidence bearing on his mental competency (e.g., his erratic behavior and use of psychotropic medication) is No. 06-3934 11 readily apparent in the record of his various pretrial hearings and in the four different psychological examinations the trial court ordered. All of this information was within the scope of the appellate court’s review on direct appeal. See Whitehead, 662 N.E.2d at 1314 (“The underlying purpose of the exception recognized in Thomas [People v. Thomas, 231 N.E.2d 436 (Ill. 1967)] was to permit post-conviction review of matters which were unreviewable on direct appeal because those matters depended upon facts not within the trial record.”). The Illinois Appellate Court’s determination that Sturgeon’s ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim was waived is thus an adequate and independent state ground, and this claim is unreviewable on federal habeas.