Crockett v. Butler

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his murder conviction, after finding that defendant had procedurally defaulted on both issues (sufficiency of evidence and Confrontation Clause violation) contained in habeas petition, where: (1) defendant had failed to raise sufficiency of evidence issue in original direct appeal; and (2) defendant failed to appeal Illinois Appellate Court’s denial of his Confrontation Clause issue in any petition for leave to appeal to Illinois Supreme Court from Appellate Court’s original decision. Fact that defendant raised both issues in second appeal to Appellate Court following Appellate Court remand in original decision and in subsequent petition for leave to appeal to Illinois Supreme Court did not cure instant default, since: (1) Appellate Court rejected Confrontation Clause issue in second appeal based on law of the case doctrine, which effectively precluded Illinois Supreme Court from reviewing on merits Confrontation Clause issue; and (2) Appellate Court could properly find that defendant had waived sufficiency of evidence issue because he could have, but failed to raise it in his original direct appeal. Moreover, sufficiency of evidence issue was really matter of state law that could not be addressed in any federal habeas petition.