Harris v. Reed
103 L. Ed. 2d 308, 1989 U.S. LEXIS 1044, 489 U.S. 255 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'plain statement' rule of Michigan v. Long applies to federal habeas corpus review, meaning a state court's ambiguous ruling on procedural default does not bar federal review of a federal claim unless the state court clearly and expressly states its judgment rests on an adequate and independent state procedural ground.
Facts:
- Warren Lee Harris was convicted of murder in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
- Harris challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence on direct appeal of his conviction.
- Harris later filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance, including failing to call alibi witnesses.
- The Appellate Court of Illinois, in an order affirming the dismissal of Harris's postconviction petition, referred to the Illinois principle of waiver for issues not raised on direct appeal, stating that most of Harris's ineffective assistance allegations "could have been raised in [his] direct appeal."
- The Illinois Appellate Court, however, went on to consider and reject Harris's ineffective-assistance claim on its merits.
Procedural Posture:
- Warren Lee Harris was convicted of murder in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
- Harris's direct appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, was affirmed by the Appellate Court of Illinois in an unpublished order.
- Harris filed a petition for postconviction relief in the Circuit Court of Cook County, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Circuit Court of Cook County dismissed Harris's postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing.
- The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the dismissal of the postconviction petition in an unpublished order, which noted a waiver principle but also addressed the merits of Harris's ineffective assistance claim.
- Harris did not seek review in the Supreme Court of Illinois.
- Harris filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- The District Court determined the state appellate court had not held Harris's claim to be waived and proceeded to consider the ineffective assistance claim on its merits, eventually dismissing it.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal but on procedural grounds, concluding that Harris's ineffective assistance claim was procedurally barred because the state court's order 'suggested' an intention to find all grounds waived except for one.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'plain statement' rule from Michigan v. Long apply to federal habeas corpus review, such that an ambiguous state court ruling on procedural default does not bar federal review of a federal claim unless the state court clearly and expressly states its judgment rests on a state procedural bar?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
Yes, the 'plain statement' rule of Michigan v. Long applies to federal habeas corpus review. The procedural default rule of Wainwright v. Sykes, which bars federal habeas review when a state court judgment rests on an adequate and independent state procedural ground, derives from the same doctrine applied in direct review cases. Just as Michigan v. Long requires a state court to clearly and expressly state its reliance on an independent state ground to preclude direct review, the same clarity is needed for habeas review to address the problem of ambiguous state-court opinions. This rule prevents federal courts from having to interpret ambiguous state-court intentions and promotes judicial efficiency. Applying this rule to Harris's case, the Illinois Appellate Court's statement about issues that 'could have been raised' fell short of a clear and express reliance on waiver, especially since it proceeded to reject the federal claim on its merits. Therefore, the federal courts were not precluded from addressing Harris's claim.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
I concur with the Court's opinion and judgment, despite my previous dissent in Michigan v. Long. My concerns in Long related to expanding federal jurisdiction in cases where state courts might have 'overprotected' citizens' rights and the presumption against federal jurisdiction. However, these concerns are not present in habeas corpus cases. In the habeas context, federal courts are performing their 'core function of vindicating federally protected rights,' not reviewing state courts for overreach. Therefore, applying the Long rule to resolve ambiguities regarding state procedural bars in habeas cases is appropriate and uniquely virtuous.
Concurring - Justice O’Connor
I join the Court’s opinion, agreeing with the application of the 'plain statement' rule to state procedural default rules. I emphasize two points: First, this opinion does not affect the established rule that lower federal courts, and this Court, may inquire into the availability of state remedies when determining if federal habeas corpus claims have been properly exhausted under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). This inquiry is necessary when a claim has never been presented to a state forum, and federal courts are authorized to assess whether a state court would find the claim procedurally defaulted. Second, the Court's opinion does not alter the 'cause and prejudice' test from Wainwright v. Sykes for overcoming procedural defaults, nor does it change the narrow 'miscarriage of justice' exception for cases of probable factual innocence.
Dissenting - Justice Kennedy
No, the 'plain statement' rule of Michigan v. Long should not be extended to federal habeas corpus review. The majority's reasoning rests on flawed premises. The Long rule was designed for direct review cases where a state court's reliance on state substantive law might be interwoven with federal law. Here, the ambiguity is whether the state court invoked its procedural bar at all, not whether it's independent of federal law. It is unreasonable to presume a state court disregarded its own procedural rules, especially when it mentions them. A better rule would presume the procedural bar was invoked unless an exception is clearly stated. Furthermore, direct and collateral review are not equivalent; Wainwright v. Sykes established the cause-and-prejudice standard for habeas based on principles of comity and federalism, explicitly separating it from direct review doctrines. Applying Long to habeas unduly burdens state interests in finality and sovereignty and creates perverse incentives for prisoners to seek ambiguous state rulings to gain federal access, contrary to the goals of Sykes. Federal courts are capable of interpreting state procedural laws, as required by exhaustion requirements, and the majority's rule contradicts other precedents like Engle v. Isaac.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarified the jurisdictional framework for federal habeas corpus review when state courts invoke procedural default rules. By extending the Michigan v. Long 'plain statement' rule, the Supreme Court placed a clear burden on state courts: to preclude federal habeas review of a federal claim based on a state procedural default, the state court's judgment must unambiguously state that it rests on such a procedural bar. This ruling aims to reduce the ambiguity that often led federal courts to guess at state court intent, ensuring that federal constitutional questions receive review unless explicitly and properly defaulted by the state. It promotes judicial efficiency by allowing federal courts to quickly identify reviewable federal issues and reinforces the federal judiciary's role in vindicating federal rights.
