O'Sullivan v. Boerckel

Supreme Court of the United States · 1999 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsHabeas CorpusExhaustionProcedural Default28 U.S.C. § 2254exhaustionprocedural defaultstate habeas

Facts

Boerckel was convicted in Illinois state court, and on direct appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court he raised, among other things, claims about Miranda waiver, voluntariness of his confession, sufficiency of the evidence, illegal arrest, prosecutorial misconduct, and denial of exculpatory material. In his petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, however, he raised only three issues and omitted the Miranda-waiver, voluntariness, and sufficiency claims. In his later federal habeas petition under § 2254, he included those omitted claims. By then, the time for filing a petition for leave to appeal in the Illinois Supreme Court had long passed.

Issue

Must a state prisoner present his federal claims to a state court of last resort in a petition for discretionary review when that discretionary review is part of the State's ordinary appellate review process in order to satisfy the federal habeas exhaustion requirement? If he fails to do so and the time to seek that review expires, are those claims procedurally defaulted?

Rule

For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c), a state prisoner must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve federal constitutional claims by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review process. When discretionary review in the state court of last resort is a normal, simple, and established part of that process, the prisoner must present his claims there; the mere existence of a discretionary review system does not by itself make that review unavailable.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, Lena Ortiz was convicted in Toledo state court. On direct appeal, she raised a federal Confrontation Clause claim in the Ohio intermediate appellate court, lost, and then filed a discretionary appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court raising only a state evidentiary issue; after the deadline for amending or refiling passed, she filed a federal habeas petition pressing the Confrontation Clause claim.

How should the federal court treat Lena's Confrontation Clause claim?

Explanation. Section 2254 requires a prisoner to give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve federal claims by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review process. When discretionary review in the state court of last resort is a normal part of that process, the claim must be presented there as well. Because Lena omitted the federal claim from that discretionary filing and the time to seek review has expired, the claim is procedurally defaulted.