152 F.4th 874
7th Cir.2025Background
- Seats shot a gun into a store window, injuring a customer;
- In 2012, Seats was convicted in Illinois court of aggravated battery with a firearm, armed habitual criminal, and aggravated discharge of a firearm;
- The pre-sentence report listed six prior felonies, including aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) convictions, two of which were later vacated;
- Illinois Supreme Court decisions in Aguilar, Burns, and McFadden changed the fate and use of AUUW convictions as predicates;
- Seats sought state-post-conviction relief alleging his sentence relied on unconstitutional AUUW convictions;
- A federal §2254 petition was filed arguing due process required sentencing based on accurate information; the district court dismissed as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the habeas petition | Seats argues §2244(d)(1)(D) applies due to vacatur date | Nurse contends timeliness governed by final judgment (§2244(d)(1)(A)) | Untimely under §2244(d)(1)(A); forfeiture prevents §2244(d)(1)(D) application |
| Johnson rule applicability to timeliness | Vacatur of predicate felonies restarts limitations under Johnson | Seats forfeited this theory by not raising in district court | Forfeited; Johnson not applied; timeliness affirmed |
| Whether the Illinois Appellate Court’s merits ruling was reasonable | Vacated AUUW convictions could affect sentence and due process | Court properly found the vacated convictions were insignificantly weighed | Illinois Appellate Court’s factual finding reasonable; no due process violation |
| Plain error review in a civil habeas proceeding | Johnson should be reviewed via plain error due to district court oversight | High bar; not met; no reversal on plain error | Plain error review not available; issue foreclosed by forfeiture and lack of exceptional circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295 (U.S. 2005) (new fact of vacatur can trigger limitations with due diligence required)
- Roque-Espinoza, 338 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2003) (cited for development of argument despite undeveloped briefing)
- Pole v. Randolph, 570 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2009) (forfeiture principle in appellate briefing)
- Bourgeois v. Watson, 977 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2020) (civil plain-error review is limited; high bar)
- Patterson v. Adkins, 124 F.4th 1035 (7th Cir. 2025) (review of statute-of-limitations determination in habeas)
- Lechner v. Frank, 341 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2003) (reliance on misinformation in sentencing)
- Promotor v. Pollard, 628 F.3d 878 (7th Cir. 2010) (due-process standard for reliance on information in sentencing)