O’Sullivan v. Boerckel
526 U.S. 838 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To satisfy the federal habeas corpus exhaustion requirement, a state prisoner must present all federal claims to the state's highest court in a petition for discretionary review, even if that court's review is not a matter of right.
Facts:
- In 1977, Darren Boerckel was tried in Illinois for rape, burglary, and aggravated battery of an 87-year-old woman.
- The central evidence against Boerckel at his trial was his written confession to the crimes.
- A jury convicted Boerckel on all three charges, and he was sentenced to a lengthy prison term.
- Boerckel appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, raising several federal constitutional claims, including that his confession was coerced, that he had not validly waived his Miranda rights, and that the evidence was insufficient.
- The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed his conviction.
- Boerckel then filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.
- In his petition to the Illinois Supreme Court, Boerckel raised claims of illegal arrest and prosecutorial misconduct but did not include his claims regarding the Miranda waiver, the voluntariness of his confession, or the sufficiency of the evidence.
Procedural Posture:
- Darren Boerckel filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
- The District Court found that Boerckel had procedurally defaulted three of his claims because he failed to include them in his petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.
- The District Court denied the habeas petition after concluding Boerckel did not meet the 'fundamental miscarriage of justice' exception to overcome the default.
- Boerckel, the appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that Boerckel had not procedurally defaulted the claims because he was not required to present them in a petition for discretionary review to exhaust his state remedies.
- The State, represented by O'Sullivan (the warden) as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 a state prisoner satisfy the federal habeas corpus exhaustion requirement by presenting claims to an intermediate state appellate court but failing to include those same claims in a subsequent petition for discretionary review to the state's highest court?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
No. To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, state prisoners must give state courts a full and fair opportunity to resolve federal constitutional claims by invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate review process. In a state with a two-tiered appellate system, this requires presenting all claims to the state's highest court, even when its review is discretionary. The federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c), requires exhaustion if a prisoner has the 'right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.' A petition for discretionary review is an 'available procedure.' Boerckel's failure to present three of his federal claims to the Illinois Supreme Court in a timely manner resulted in a procedural default of those claims, barring them from federal habeas review.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
The majority improperly conflates the distinct doctrines of exhaustion and procedural default. Boerckel's claims were exhausted because no state remedy was available to him when he filed his federal petition. The proper question is whether he procedurally defaulted his claims, and he did not, because he complied with Illinois's procedural rules, which encourage 'winnowing out weaker arguments' for discretionary review. The Court's holding disrespects state procedural systems, undermines effective advocacy, and will inundate state supreme courts with unwanted petitions, thereby offending rather than serving the principle of comity.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
Whether a prisoner must seek discretionary review should depend on the State's own preference. Illinois's rules and low grant rate for criminal petitions indicate it does not want to be presented with every possible claim. The majority's holding will impose significant, unwelcome burdens on already overburdened state supreme courts and will further delay the criminal process. The better rule would be to presume that states do not require this step unless they explicitly state otherwise.
Concurring - Justice Souter
The majority's holding that the mere existence of a discretionary review system makes it an 'available' remedy for exhaustion purposes is correct. However, the opinion correctly leaves open the question of whether federal courts must require this step when a state has made a plain statement that it does not wish to receive such petitions for exhaustion purposes, as South Carolina has done. Comity would require federal courts to defer to such an explicit state policy, as forcing unwanted petitions upon a state's highest court serves no federal interest.
Analysis:
This decision established a bright-line rule for the exhaustion of state remedies in federal habeas corpus proceedings. It mandates that prisoners must present all federal claims to the state's highest court, even if review is discretionary, thereby resolving a circuit split on the issue. This ruling increases the procedural burden on habeas petitioners and creates a potential trap for uncounseled or unwary litigants who might 'winnow' their claims. However, it also provides a clear path for states to opt out of this requirement by issuing a plain statement that such petitions are not necessary for exhaustion, thus preserving a measure of state control over court dockets.
Unlock the full brief for O’Sullivan v. Boerckel