Andrew Condon v. Anthony Wills, Warden

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois considers Andrew Condon’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas challenge to his Illinois first-degree murder conviction. The opinion addresses exhaustion and procedural default, concluding that Condon failed to preserve most claims through one complete round of state-court review and that the remaining ineffective-assistance claim was rejected on an adequate and independent state-law ground.

Holdings

1. A state prisoner procedurally defaults federal habeas claims when he fails to present them through one complete round of the state's established appellate review process. Because Condon raised only one postconviction issue in the Illinois Appellate Court, the remaining claims were procedurally defaulted.
2. A federal habeas court may not reach the merits of a claim that the state court resolved on an independent and adequate state-law ground. Condon's preserved ineffective-assistance claim was barred because he failed to attach the affidavits required by Illinois law.
3. Errors by state postconviction appellate counsel could not establish cause to excuse Condon's procedural defaults because there is no constitutional right to counsel in state postconviction proceedings.
4. Condon's asserted evidence did not satisfy the actual-innocence exception to procedural default because it was not sufficiently new or exculpatory to show that it was more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.
5. Because all claims were procedurally defaulted and no exception applied, Condon was not entitled to habeas relief or the requested limited discovery.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Condon's federal habeas claims were procedurally defaulted because he failed to present them through one complete round of Illinois appellate review.
2. Whether Condon's ineffective-assistance claim concerning counsel's failure to investigate and call witnesses was barred by Illinois's independent and adequate affidavit requirement.
3. Whether alleged errors by state postconviction appellate counsel, prison mail issues, or COVID-19 lockdowns established cause to excuse the procedural defaults.
4. Whether Condon's asserted new evidence satisfied the actual-innocence gateway to overcome procedural default.
5. Whether Condon was entitled to limited discovery or a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

dismissed