108 F.4th 938
7th Cir.2024Background
- Donnell D. Wilson, sentenced at age 16 to 183 years for two murders and related crimes in Indiana, later had his sentence reduced to 100 years by the Indiana Supreme Court.
- Wilson filed for federal habeas corpus, arguing his sentence is a de facto life sentence for a juvenile, barred by Miller v. Alabama.
- The Indiana Supreme Court denied Wilson’s Eighth Amendment argument but reduced his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) after finding ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
- The federal district court held Wilson’s federal habeas petition was timely due to the entry of a new state-court judgment (the reduced sentence), but denied relief on the merits.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed timeliness of Wilson’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), and the merits under AEDPA (28 U.S.C. § 2254).
Issues
| Issue | Wilson’s Argument | Neal’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under §2244(d) | The 100-year sentence started a new clock, making his federal petition timely. | The reduced sentence was not a new judgment; original clock still ran, so petition is late. | The sentence reduction under Rule 7(B) was a new judgment, petition is timely. |
| Eighth Amendment De Facto Life Sentence | Miller bars de facto life sentences for juveniles, applies to his 100-year sentence. | Miller only forbids mandatory life without parole, not term-of-years, nor does it extend to de facto life sentences. | No Supreme Court precedent extends Miller to de facto life sentences, so no habeas relief. |
| Standard of Review under AEDPA | State court did not decide the merits of the federal Eighth Amendment claim; review should be de novo. | State court adjudicated the Eighth Amendment claim, triggering deferential AEDPA review. | Indiana Supreme Court’s decision was on the merits, so AEDPA deference applies. |
| Application of Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) | The court’s reduction was akin to full resentencing requiring new federal review clock. | 7(B) only adjusts, not resentences; not a new judgment. | 7(B) review and reduction is sufficiently like resentencing to reset federal habeas limitation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (new state-court judgment after resentencing resets federal habeas limitations clock)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional)
- Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133 (AEDPA standard for 'contrary to' and 'unreasonable application' of Supreme Court law)
- White v. United States, 745 F.3d 834 (sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) is not resentencing; does not create a new judgment)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (federal habeas relief allowed only if no fairminded disagreement on Supreme Court precedent application)
- White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415 (objectively unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent required for habeas relief)