Anthony Barnett v. Ron Neal
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10902
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Barnett was convicted in Indiana of multiple felonies and sentenced to 80 years; appellate counsel missed a procedural defect in amended charges added after Indiana’s omnibus deadline.
- Barnett pursued state post-conviction relief and a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; after Shaw v. Wilson, the case was remanded.
- On June 1, 2015, the district court granted a conditional writ: within 120 days the State must either release Barnett or grant him leave to file a new direct appeal with counsel.
- The State took no action before the 120 days elapsed; Barnett moved for immediate release on Sept. 30, 2015; the State then sought a 30-day extension to pursue leave to file a new appeal in state court.
- The district court extended the compliance deadline to Oct. 29, 2015, and denied Barnett’s subsequent motion for immediate release after the Indiana Court of Appeals granted leave to file a new appeal and ordered appointment of counsel.
- Barnett appealed the extension and denial of reconsideration; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting additional time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could extend time to comply with a conditional writ after the 120-day period expired | Barnett: June 1 writ created an unconditional right to immediate release on expiry of 120 days | State: reasonable confusion about who must initiate the state-court appeal justified extra time to seek leave | Court: district court had equitable authority to grant additional time and did not abuse discretion |
| Proper characterization of State’s request for more time (Rule 60(b) subsection) | Barnett: State implicitly relied on Rule 60(b)(6), which requires extraordinary circumstances | State/District: relief fits Rule 60(b)(1) for mistake/inadvertence/excusable neglect; labels not outcome-determinative | Court: substance controls; Rule 60(b)(1) characterization appropriate and relief allowable |
| Whether State’s institutional limitations made compliance within 120 days impossible | Barnett: State should have anticipated remedy choices and complied | State: executive officials lacked unilateral power to obtain leave for a new appeal; confusion was understandable | Court: district court reasonably found the State’s confusion understandable given separation of powers and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether Barnett was entitled only to immediate release rather than a new appeal | Barnett: immediate release was required after time lapsed | State: offering a new direct appeal with counsel is a valid, narrower remedy for appellate ineffective assistance | Court: new appeal is an adequate, constitutionally proper remedy and State may be given time to provide it |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaw v. Wilson, 721 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2013) (governing precedent recognizing habeas relief for late amended charges under Indiana omnibus rule)
- Gilmore v. Bertrand, 301 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2002) (district courts may grant states additional time beyond conditional-writ period to cure constitutional defects)
- Wesco Prod. Co. v. Alloy Auto. Co., 880 F.2d 981 (7th Cir. 1989) (substance of Rule 60(b) request controls over label)
- Arrieta v. Battaglia, 461 F.3d 861 (7th Cir. 2006) (limitations on invoking Rule 60(b)(6) when relief fits earlier clauses)
- Moje v. Fed. Hockey League, LLC, 792 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2015) (Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (certificate of appealability standards and requirement analysis)
- State v. Monfort, 723 N.E.2d 407 (Ind. 2000) (discussing Indiana separation of powers relevant to who may seek appellate relief)