Richard Ambrose v. Zach Roeckeman
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7017
7th Cir.2014Background
- Ambrose was charged in 1998 with four counts of predatory criminal sexual assault involving a five-year-old girl and her friend; he was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person under the SDPA in 1999 after a jury verdict.
- Ambrose filed a recovery application in December 2005; the state court denied it in June 2008; Ambrose then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in March 2010.
- At the recovery hearing, evidence was admitted about out-of-state abuse allegations (Arizona and Indiana) through testimony by Dr. Stanislaus, which Ambrose argues prejudiced his due process rights.
- The district court and court of appeals analyzed procedural default and potential cause, including whether ineffective appellate counsel could excuse default, and whether there was a constitutional right to appellate counsel in SDPA proceedings.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief, holding no due process violation, no sufficient cause to excuse default, and that any potential prejudice was minimized in a bench proceeding; the petition was properly dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of out-of-state abuse allegations violated due process | Ambrose | State | No due process violation; evidence used to inform expert opinion, not to prove acts; bench trial minimizes prejudice. |
| Whether the claim was procedurally defaulted and could be reviewed for cause | Ambrose | Roeckeman | Default not excused; ineffective appellate counsel cannot establish cause here. |
| Whether there is a constitutional right to appellate counsel in SDPA appeals and its impact on cause | Ambrose | State | Not necessary to decide; even if rights existed, no violation occurred and no cause shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ray v. Clements, 700 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2012) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings; avoid strict technical defects)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (S. Ct. 2007) (pro se pleadings judged liberally)
- Koons v. United States, 639 F.3d 348 (7th Cir. 2011) (treatment of pro se claims and default rules)
- Osagiede v. United States, 543 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 2008) (liberal construction of claims in habeas petitions by pro se litigants)
- McGee v. Bartow, 593 F.3d 556 (7th Cir. 2010) (standards for prosecuting ineffective assistance claims in habeas cases)
- Brown v. Williams, 599 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 2010) (no automatic right to appellate counsel; necessity to ground rights in the Constitution)