Rodney Clemons v. Randy Pfister, 845 F.3d 816

Doris Smith was murdered; Rodney Clemons was identified by eyewitnesses, charged, convicted by jury, and sentenced to 45 years.
Clemons claimed at trial postconviction that his counsel was ineffective under Strickland for failing to call Andre Smith as an alibi witness; an affidavit from Andre Smith was submitted but initially was a partial/poor photocopy.
Clemons filed a motion for reconsideration with a legible affidavit; the trial court treated that filing as an improper successive petition and denied relief under state procedural rules.
On state appeal Clemons was represented by counsel; he separately filed pro se motions and a proposed pro se reply brief raising the Strickland/alibi claim, but the Illinois Appellate Court declined to accept the pro se brief because he had counsel (disfavoring hybrid representation).
Clemons sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising the Strickland claim. The district court found the claim procedurally defaulted and alternatively denied it on the merits.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the state appellate court’s refusal to consider the pro se brief under the rule against hybrid representation was an independent and adequate state ground barring federal habeas review of the Strickland claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Clemons)	Defendant's Argument (Illinois/State)	Held
Whether Clemons’s Strickland claim is barred by procedural default because the Illinois Appellate Court refused to consider his pro se reply brief raising the alibi-witness claim	Clemons argued the appellate court’s enforcement of the rule against hybrid representation prevented him from fairly presenting his federal claim and was applied in a novel/unfair way given the court took his pro se motions with the merits	Illinois argued the appellate court properly declined to accept the pro se brief because he was represented by counsel; that discrete rule is an independent and adequate state ground for dismissal	Held: Affirmed. The appellate court’s refusal under the hybrid-representation rule was an independent, adequate state ground, so federal habeas review of the Strickland claim is procedurally barred

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established ineffective-assistance-of-counsel two-part test)
Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307 (state procedural rules, including discretionary ones, can bar federal habeas if firmly established and regularly followed)
Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. 53 (same; adequacy requires firm establishment and regular application)
Thomas v. Williams, 822 F.3d 378 (7th Cir.) (standard of review for procedural-default rulings)
Richardson v. Lemke, 745 F.3d 258 (7th Cir.) (describing paradigms of procedural default)
Prihoda v. McCaughtry, 910 F.2d 1379 (7th Cir.) (discussing when novel or freakish application of state rules may render them inadequate)