Paul Villanueva v. Keith Anglin
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12148
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Villanueva and Serrano pled guilty to unrelated crimes in exchange for prison terms; Illinois MSR law imposes a three-year mandatory supervised release, which was not expressly included in the plea judgments.
- During plea/sentencing hearings, judges warned of MSR and the defendants understood it; the judgments themselves did not list an MSR term.
- Serrano received 14 years for attempted murder plus 1 year for a related count; Villanueva received 25 years for first degree murder; both judgments omitted MSR.
- Petitions for post-conviction relief were filed after each learned of MSR; Illinois appellate courts addressed Whitfield (later deemed non-retroactive by Morris) and remanded for reconsideration.
- After Morris, the defendants framed their claims under Santobello (promises in plea bargaining) rather than Whitfield; state courts denied relief, and the federal petitions followed, raising AEDPA timeliness and merits questions.
- The district courts dismissed or denied on timeliness/merits; the Seventh Circuit ultimately affirmed the denial, holding timeliness and, on the merits, lack of a Santobello promise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of habeas petitions | Serrano and Villanueva timely due diligence discovery tolled the period. | Petitions were filed outside the AEDPA one-year limit and were not properly tolled. | Petitions untimely; tolling arguments insufficient |
| Exhaustion and independent/state grounds | Santobello claim properly presented to state court; both exhausted. | Whitfield framework foreclosed due process claims or separate Santobello theory. | Santobello claims exhausted and not barred by independent/state grounds |
| Merits of Santobello claim | State promised no MSR to fulfill plea bargain; MSR violated Santobello. | No explicit/implicit promise that MSR would be waived; MSR arises by statute, not a negotiated term. | No Santobello breach; no promise to exclude MSR from sentence |
| Effect of Morris on Whitfield/Santobello claims | Whitfield framework should apply to due process claims including Santobello claims on remand. | Whitfield ruled non-retroactive; Santobello claims independently actionable. | Whitfield non-retroactive does not bar Santobello claims; merits reviewed de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (promises in plea bargains must be fulfilled)
- Whitfield, 840 N.E.2d 658 (Ill. 2005) (new rule; retroactivity under Morris)
- Morris, 925 N.E.2d 1069 (Ill. 2010) (Whitfield non-retroactive; Morris governs)
- Moore v. Knight, 368 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2004) (due diligence starts limitations clock)
- Owens v. Boyd, 235 F.3d 356 (7th Cir. 2000) (objective indicators trigger limitations period)
- Clarke v. United States, 703 F.3d 1098 (7th Cir. 2013) (due diligence and inquiry notice; inquiry suffices)
- United States v. Bowler, 585 F.2d 851 (7th Cir. 1978) (promises not always explicit; implied promises possible)
- Jordan ex rel. United States v. Jordan, 870 F.2d 1310 (7th Cir. 1989) (Santobello does not require discussing all ramifications)
- Baker v. Finkbeiner, 551 F.2d 180 (7th Cir. 1977) (MSR admonition and plea involuntariness considerations)
- Ferris v. Finkbeiner, 551 F.2d 185 (7th Cir. 1977) (misinformation about MSR affects voluntariness)
- Miller v. McGinnis, 774 F.2d 819 (7th Cir. 1985) (inadequate admonitions and plea withdrawal considerations)
- Lockhart v. Chandler, 446 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2006) (failure-to-admonish MSR claim; AEDPA context)