Wilson v. Neal

108 F.4th 938

Donnell D. WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ron NEAL, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 23-2316

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Argued April 10, 2024

Decided July 24, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. No. 3:22-cv-00205-JD-MGG — Jon E. DeGuilio, Judge.

Michael Ausbrook, Attorney, Bloomington, IN, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Andrew A. Kobe, Attorney, Office of the Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Respondent-Appellee.

Joel Wieneke, Attorney, Wieneke Law Office, LLC, Brooklyn, IN, for Amicus Curiae Indiana Public Defender Council.

Before Ripple, Hamilton, and Brennan, Circuit Judges.

Hamilton, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner Donnell Wilson is serving an Indiana prison sentence of 100 years for committing two murders when he was sixteen years old. Wilson petitioned a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus. He asserts that the sentence violates the Eighth Amendment as construed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012). Miller held that a person may not be sentenced to a mandatory term of life in prison without parole for a homicide committed while under the age of eighteen. Wilson contends the reasoning of Miller extends to a sentence like his: a sentence for a term of years that is so long that it amounts to a de facto life sentence.

We address two principal issues. First, the State contends Wilson's federal habeas petition is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The district court found his petition timely, and so do we. To decide that issue, we must consider in some detail Indiana Rule of Appellate Procedure 7(B), a unique rule that the Indiana Supreme Court invoked to reduce Wilson's sentence from 181 years to 100 years. Second, the district court denied relief on the merits, finding that the state-court decision rejected Wilson's Eighth Amendment claim under Miller on the merits and that the rejection was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. We agree and, on that basis, affirm the denial of Wilson's petition on the merits.

I. Factual and Procedural History

A. The Underlying Convictions

We presume the facts set forth by the state court are correct unless they are rebutted with clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). We reproduce the facts of the murders from the Indiana Supreme Court's summary of the evidence presented at Wilson's trial:

In March 2013, sixteen-year-old Donnell Wilson, his then-girlfriend, her brother Jonte Crawford, and another of the Crawfords' relatives were all walking home from playing basketball in their hometown of Gary, Indiana. When the group encountered fifteen-year-old Derrick Thompson, Wilson and Jonte flashed the handguns they were carrying and began harassing and intimidating Thompson, making references to the local Tre 7 gang. The pair then took Thompson's smartphone and headphones and walked away.

A short time later, the group happened upon brothers Shaqwone Ham and Charles Wood. Wilson and Jonte were members of several interrelated gangs, including the Get Fresh Boys, Tre 7, and Glen Park Affiliated, which were all at odds with the Bottom Side gang, to which Ham and Wood belonged. Wilson had previously argued in person with the brothers and their disputes had continued online with the brothers threatening to fight Wilson. The groups initially exchanged greetings, but Wilson and Jonte soon began to argue with the brothers. Wilson exclaimed, "Oh, y'all looking for me? I'm in your hood." Seconds later, he fatally shot Wood in the head. When Ham tried to run, Jonte shot him several times, killing him too. It is unclear from the record if Wilson also shot at Ham. The brothers were unarmed.

Three hours before the murders, Wilson—who had previously made several gang-related posts on Twitter—sent out a new tweet declaring "Glen Park or get shot," referring to the Gary neighborhood where he lived. An hour after the murder, he tweeted "Chillen wit my bros #[Get-FreshBoys]." Jonte and Wilson were quickly arrested, and police found Thompson's possessions on Jonte. Wilson was charged with two counts of murder, Class B felony armed robbery, and a Class D felony conspiracy to commit criminal gang activity. The State also sought a criminal gang enhancement.

While Wilson was lodged in the Lake County Jail awaiting trial, he told his cellmate he killed Ham and Wood because they were affiliated with the rival Bottom Side gang. He also explained how his gang affiliation had led to Twitter disputes with members of the Bottom Side gang. Wilson, along with some fellow inmates, later jumped this cellmate because he was from the "other side of the bridge" dividing Gary. During this period, Wilson was also recorded on a jailhouse video conference stating he wanted to "smash" a member of a rival gang incarcerated in the same facility and indicated a desire to continue participating in gang activity.

After a four-day trial beginning in June 2014, a jury found Wilson guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced Wilson to a term of sixty years for the first murder conviction, fifty-five consecutive years for the second murder conviction, six consecutive years for armed robbery, and two years for criminal gang activity, with an additional sixty consecutive years added under the criminal gang enhancement, for an aggregate sentence of 183 years. Wilson's trial counsel did not retain any experts in preparation for the sentencing hearing and did not present any witnesses at sentencing. When handing down the sentence, the court cited several aggravating factors, but found Wilson's youth to be a mitigating factor.

Wilson v. State, 157 N.E.3d 1163, 1167-68 (Ind. 2020) (internal record citations and footnotes omitted).

B. Procedural History

Wilson's case has an unusual procedural history resulting from the operation of Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), discussed below. The exact dates of various state-court events are vital in determining whether Wilson's petition is timely.

On August 5, 2014, a state trial court formally issued its judgment sentencing Wilson to 183 years in prison. Wilson appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals. That court affirmed, except for finding that the two-year sentence for criminal gang activity duplicated the 60-year criminal gang sentencing enhancement. The appellate court vacated the gang activity conviction and reduced the total sentence to 181 years. Wilson's direct appeal ended with the Indiana Supreme Court denying a transfer petition (Indiana's form of discretionary review). After that, the Indiana appellate opinion was certified and became final on August 19, 2015.

Next, on August 11, 2016, Wilson filed his petition for postconviction relief in a state trial court. The trial court denied relief on November 21, 2018, after an evidentiary hearing. Wilson appealed. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed that denial on June 27, 2019, finding that Wilson's trial counsel had been ineffective by failing "to present any evidence related to youth and its attendant characteristics or to Wilson's own youth, environment, mental health, good character, or prospects of rehabilitation." Wilson v. State, 128 N.E.3d 492, 502 (Ind. App. 2019). The state appellate court ordered a new sentencing hearing. Id. at 503. The State then petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court for transfer.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted the transfer petition, thus vacating the appellate opinion, and issued its own opinion on November 17, 2020. 157 N.E.3d 1163 (Ind. 2020). Wilson argued to the Indiana Supreme Court that his 181-year cumulative sentence was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment based on the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigation evidence at his sentencing hearing. Wilson also argued that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the appropriateness of his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) on direct appeal.

The Indiana Supreme Court rejected Wilson's argument that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. The court explained its view that, first, Miller did not apply to sentences for terms of years, even if they amount to de facto life sentences like Wilson's, and second, that even if Miller applied, the sentencing court's consideration of Wilson's youth and background would suffice to satisfy this expanded application of Miller. Wilson, 157 N.E.3d at 1184. The Indiana Supreme Court also found that Wilson's trial counsel sufficiently investigated Wilson's background and potential mitigation arguments. Id. at 1177-78. The court found, however, that Wilson's appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Id. at 1180-81.

Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) authorizes an unusual degree of appellate review of criminal sentences: "The Court may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender." On direct appeal, Wilson's appellate counsel did not argue that his sentence should be revised under this rule. The Indiana Supreme Court explained: "The correct remedy for this failure, in this instance, is to give Wilson a new chance to present an Appellate Rule 7(B) claim. But rather than remand for consideration, in the interest of judicial economy, we choose to now conduct a review of the sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B)." 157 N.E.3d at 1181.

Taking into account the evidence available during the direct appeal of Wilson's original conviction and sentence, the Indiana Supreme Court explained that a downward adjustment to his sentence was appropriate. Id. The court reduced Wilson's sentence from...