United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
BILLY J. INGRAM, Petitioner,
WILLIAM POLLARD, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(DKT. NO. 1), DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
September 15, 2017, Billy J. Ingram, who is representing
himself, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. §2254, challenging his August 1, 2013
judgment of conviction in Waukesha County Circuit Court for
first-degree intentional homicide, armed robbery with use of
force, possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of
marijuana. Dkt. No. 1. He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. This
order screens the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases. Because the petitioner had a
full and fair opportunity to present his Fourth Amendment
claim in the state courts, the court will deny his petition
and dismiss this case.
6, 2013, a jury in Waukesha County convicted the petitioner
of first-degree intentional homicide, armed robbery with use
of force, possession of a firearm by a felon, and possession
of marijuana. State v. Billy J. Ingram, No.
2012CF000774, Waukesha County Circuit Court, found at
https://wcca.wicourts.gov. On August 1, 2013, the petitioner
was sentenced to prison until September 18, 2071 on the
homicide count; sentences for all of the other counts ran
concurrently with that sentence. Id. The petitioner
filed a direct appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in
denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence obtained as
a result of what the petitioner alleges was an illegal search
and seizure, as well as challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals
affirmed the judgment of conviction on November 26, 2014.
Id. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the petition
for review on April 16, 2015. Id.
September 18, 2015, the petitioner filed a motion for
post-conviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel. Dkt. No. 1 at 4; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 11-12.
The Waukesha County Circuit Court denied the motion on
October 26, 2015. Dkt. No. 1 at 4-5. The petitioner appealed,
and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals denied the petition on
February 16, 2016. Id. at 5. The petitioner's
exhibits confirm that he filed a petition for review with the
Wisconsin Supreme Court, which was denied on June 15, 2016.
Dkt. No. 1-1 at 16.
18, 2016, the petitioner filed a motion for a new trial in
Waukesha County Circuit Court, arguing juror bias and
ineffective assistance of counsel. Dkt. No. 1 at 5-6; Dkt.
No. 1-1 at 18. The court denied the motion on September 12,
2016. Dkt. No. 1 at 6. On September 29, 2016, the petitioner
appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial, and the
Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's
decision on August 9, 2017. Id. at 7; Dkt. No. 1-1
at 18, 25. The petitioner filed this federal habeas
petition on September 15, 2017. Dkt. No. 1 at 1.
Rule 4 Screening
of the Rules Governing §2254 Proceedings provides:
If it plainly appears form the face of the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the
petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner. If
the petition is not dismissed, the judge must order the
respondent to file an answer, motion or other response within
a fixed time, or to take other action the judge may order.
allows a habeas petition to proceed unless it is
clear to the court that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief in the district court. At the screening stage, the
court expresses no view of the merits of any of the
petitioner's claims. Rather, the court reviews the
petition and exhibits to determine whether the petitioner
alleges he is in custody in violation of the
“Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. §2254(a). If the state court
denied the petition on the merits, this court can grant the
petition only if the petitioner is in custody as a result of:
(1) “a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,
as determined by the United States Supreme Court;” or
(2) “a decision that was based on an unreasonable
application determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented in the state court proceeding.” 28
court also considers whether the petitioner filed within the
limitations period, exhausted his state court remedies and
avoided procedural default. Generally, a state prisoner must
file his habeas petition within one year of the
judgment becoming final. 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1)(A). In
addition, the state prisoner must exhaust the remedies
available in the state courts before the district court may
consider the merits of his federal petition. 28 U.S.C.
§2254(b)(1)(A). If the district court discovers that the
petitioner has included an unexhausted claim, the petitioner
either must return to state court to exhaust the claim or
amend his petition to present only the exhausted claims.
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982).
even if a petitioner has exhausted a claim, the district
court may still be barred from considering the claim if the
petitioner failed to raise the claim in the state's
highest court in a timely fashion or in the manner prescribed
by the state's procedural laws. See O'Sullivan v.