Jerome White v. Salvador A. Godinez

Seventh Circuit

Jerome White v. Salvador A. Godinez

192 F.3d 607, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 23682, 1999 WL 768387

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedSeptember 29, 1999

Docket96-3187

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 192 F.3d 607 (Jerome White v. Salvador A. Godinez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jerome White v. Salvador A. Godinez, 192 F.3d 607, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 23682, 1999 WL 768387 (7th Cir. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

This matter is before the court on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court has directed that we reevaluate our decision in light of its holding in O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999). See Godinez v. White, 526 U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 2335, 144 L.Ed.2d 233 (1999).

In Boerckel, the Supreme Court held that failure to pursue a discretionary appeal to the highest court of the state constitutes a procedural default that bars resort to federal habeas corpus relief. Although Boerckel involved a criminal matter on direct appeal, we do not believe that there is any appreciable difference between direct appeals and post-conviction appeals in this regard. Therefore, the procedural default rule announced in Boerckel applies with equal force in a case, such as this one, on collateral review.

It is undisputed that two of the ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised by Mr. White were raised in his petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois. These two claims assert: (1) that his trial counsel failed to consult adequately with Mr. White before trial; and (2) that his trial counsel failed to call Bernice Caldwell as a witness. These two claims are therefore undefaulted and, with respect to those claims, the Supreme Court’s holding in Boerckel has no impact on this court’s original decision. See White v. Godinez, 143 F.3d 1049 (7th Cir.1998). Therefore, in accordance with our earlier decision, these two claims must be remanded to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with our earlier decision.

REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

This matter is before the court on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court has directed that we reevaluate our decision in light of its holding in O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999). See Godinez v. White, 526 U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 2335, 144 L.Ed.2d 233 (1999).

In Boerckel, the Supreme Court held that failure to pursue a discretionary appeal to the highest court of the state constitutes a procedural default that bars resort to federal habeas corpus relief. Although Boerckel involved a criminal matter on direct appeal, we do not believe that there is any appreciable difference between direct appeals and post-conviction appeals in this regard. Therefore, the procedural default rule announced in Boerckel applies with equal force in a case, such as this one, on collateral review.

It is undisputed that two of the ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised by Mr. White were raised in his petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois. These two claims assert: (1) that his trial counsel failed to consult adequately with Mr. White before trial; and (2) that his trial counsel failed to call Bernice Caldwell as a witness. These two claims are therefore undefaulted and, with respect to those claims, the Supreme Court’s holding in Boerckel has no impact on this court’s original decision. See White v. Godinez, 143 F.3d 1049 (7th Cir.1998). Therefore, in accordance with our earlier decision, these two claims must be remanded to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with our earlier decision.

REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 F.3d 607, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 23682, 1999 WL 768387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerome-white-v-salvador-a-godinez-ca7-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack