Christopher Mosley v. Mike Atchison
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16259
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Mosley was convicted at bench trial of first‑degree murder and aggravated arson, receiving consecutive terms of 60 years and 15 years.
- After exhausting state remedies, Mosley filed a federal habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- The district court granted relief and directed release unless the State appealed or retried; the State appealed and Mosley challenged jurisdiction.
- The district court relied on Pinholster to limit federal review to the state‑court record; Mosley sought to introduce new evidence from an evidentiary hearing.
- The Illinois appellate court denied the post‑conviction petition summarily; the state court’s decision was later deemed contrary to Strickland by the federal district court.
- The court ultimately vacated the district court’s grant and remanded for a merits determination incorporating new evidence not available to the state courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is jurisdictionally proper after nunc pro tunc amendment | Mosley | State | Jurisdiction was proper; appeal remains pending after retroactive judgment. |
| Whether the state appellate decision on Strickland was contrary to clearly established federal law | Mosley | State | State court decision was contrary to Strickland and review is de novo for prejudice. |
| Whether trial counsel’s failure to call Jones and Taylor was deficient performance | Mosley | State | Prejudice shown if there is a reasonable probability of a different outcome; state court erred by demanding outcome certainty. |
| Whether new evidence from evidentiary hearing should be considered under AEDPA after Pinholster | Mosley | State | Remand needed; district court must assess new evidence to determine actual ineffectiveness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes performance and prejudice prongs for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (S. Ct. 2011) (limits AEDPA review to state court record on § 2254(d)(1) grounds)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (defines 'contrary to' and 'unreasonable application' standards under § 2254(d)(1))
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (S. Ct. 2011) (permits deferential review for reasonable interpretations of state court decisions)
- Johnson v. Acevedo, 572 F.3d 398 (7th Cir. 2009) (discusses cure of defective final judgment under Rule 58/57 procedures)
- Sussman v. Jenkins, 636 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2011) (addresses shorthand Strickland prejudice and adequacy of state court reasoning)