Lacy v. Kennedy, 1:18-cv-04603

Background

In September 2008 ten-year-old Nequiel Fowler was fatally shot near 87th Street and Exchange Avenue in Chicago; ballistics linked the fatal bullet to a gun found in Raymond Jones’s house.
Co-defendant Joseph Chico testified that he, Antoine Lacy, Luis Pena, and others (members of the Latin Dragons gang) participated in a planned show of force; Chico said Lacy encouraged/organized the encounter and that Pena and Jones fired shots.
Jones’s house yielded a blue T-shirt with gunshot residue and the gun whose bullets matched those recovered from the scene and the victim.
Lacy was convicted of first-degree murder (accountability theory) and sentenced to 60 years; at sentencing the trial court treated Lacy’s active encouragement/enabling conduct as an aggravating factor and referenced a "caused or threatened serious harm" factor.
On direct appeal Lacy argued the trial court improperly used an element inherent in the offense as an aggravating factor; Illinois appellate and supreme courts rejected his claim. A post-conviction affidavit from Jones claiming Lacy’s innocence was rejected as not sufficiently conclusive.
In federal habeas proceedings the district court denied relief: it found Lacy’s federal due-process sentencing claim procedurally defaulted (not fairly presented as federal), alternatively non-cognizable as a double-enhancement challenge, and denied a certificate of appealability.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Exhaustion / Procedural default	Lacy contends sentencing based on an element inherent in murder violated due process.	State argues Lacy failed to fairly present the federal constitutional nature of the claim in state post-conviction proceedings.	Court: Claim procedurally defaulted because Lacy relied on state-law arguments and did not fairly present the federal claim to state courts.
2) Sentencing: consideration of an element inherent in the offense	Lacy: Trial court impermissibly used the "caused or threatened serious harm" element as an aggravator.	State: Trial court relied on Lacy’s active encouragement/enabling conduct—distinct from simply the victim’s death—so no double-counting of an element.	Court: Even on the merits, claim fails; appellate court reasonably found aggravation based on Lacy’s encouragement, not the mere fact of death.
3) Actual innocence to excuse default (Jones affidavit)	Lacy: Jones’s post-conviction affidavit retracts prior statements and exonerates Lacy, thus excusing default.	State: Affidavit conflicts with trial evidence and, given accountability theory, is not conclusive to probably produce a different result.	Court: Affidavit not conclusive; does not overcome default or establish actual innocence.
4) Certificate of appealability (COA)	Lacy seeks COA to appeal the denial.	State: Issues are not debatable among reasonable jurists; no substantial showing of constitutional denial.	Court: COA denied; reasonable jurists would not debate outcome.

Key Cases Cited

O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (state remedies must be exhausted through one complete round of state appellate review)
Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (failure to fairly present federal claim to state courts forfeits federal review)
Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (actual innocence exception to procedural default standard)
House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (standard for miscarriage of justice/actual innocence inquiry)
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (AEDPA requires objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal law)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (federal habeas courts do not reexamine state-law determinations)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (standard for certificate of appealability: substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right)
Cheeks v. Gaetz, 571 F.3d 680 (exhaustion principles in habeas context)
Woods v. Schwartz, 589 F.3d 368 (procedural default bars federal review)
Mulero v. Thompson, 668 F.3d 529 (procedural default doctrine applied by Seventh Circuit)
Thomas v. Williams, 822 F.3d 378 (actual-prejudice/cause standards and miscarriage-of-justice discussion)
Coleman v. Hardy, 690 F.3d 811 (presumption of state-court factual findings in habeas proceedings)
Hoglund v. Neal, 959 F.3d 819 (requirement to alert state courts to federal nature of claims)