By: Derek Hawkins//August 30, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Raymond E. King v. Randy Pfister
Case No.: 14-3389
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE and ROVNER, Circuit Judges
Focus: Ineffective Assistance
Appellant failed to present a claim for ineffective assistance based on federal due process
“The same principle that governed Miller controls the pre‐ sent case. In People v. King, the appellate court held that King could not demonstrate prejudice under Strickland because if his trial or appellate counsel had litigated his “unsubstantiated allegations” under 725 ILCS 5/114‐5(d), the challenge would have been unsuccessful under the Illinois substantive standard, which required that “the judge assigned to his case harbors actual prejudice” such that there was “animosity, hostility, ill will, or distrust towards this [specific] defend‐ ant.” No. 03‐08‐0875 at 5 (citing People v. Patterson, 735 N.E.2d 616, 638 (Ill. 2000)). In other words, the appellate court’s decision “rests on a conclusion that, as a matter of state law, it would have been futile” for King’s trial or appellate counsel to raise such a claim. Miller, 820 F.3d at 277. And similar to Miller, we cannot disturb the appellate court’s decision because a “federal court cannot disagree with a state court’s resolution of an issue of state law” in the context of habeas review. Id. At best, King can contend that the appellate court misinterpreted or misapplied Illinois state law. However, this contention is meritless because this court has expressly held that a “claim that the state court misunderstood the substantive requirements of state law does not present a claim under § 2254. A federal court may not issue the writ on the basis of a perceived error of state law.” Bates v. McCaughtry, 934 F.2d 99, 102 (7th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted).”
Affirmed