Booker v. Baker

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas corpus petition that challenged his murder conviction on ground that his trial counsel was ineffective, where Dist. Ct. could properly find that said issue was procedurally defaulted. Record showed that: (1) defendant raised ineffective assistance of counsel issue in his pro se petition for post-conviction relief, which was ultimately denied by circuit court; (2) on appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel refused to raise ineffective assistance of counsel issue, and defendant filed motion seeking leave to file supplemental brief that raised said issue; (3) Appellate Court denied defendant’s motion on ground that defendant could not file supplemental brief as long as he was represented by counsel; and (4) Dist. Ct. could properly find that said issue was procedurally defaulted, where Illinois rule against hybrid representation constituted adequate firmly-established independent procedural ground that barred federal habeas review of claim that was not otherwise considered by all courts in Illinois. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that rule against hybrid representation was not firmly established rule in Illinois. Also, defendant could not assert ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as cause to excuse procedural default, where he had no constitutional right to post-conviction counsel.