Patterson v. Gramley

Order Harvey Patterson appeals the district court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We hold that the district court's analysis was accurate and affirm on the basis of the reasoning in that decision, with one exception. Section IV-B of the district court's decision holds that Patterson did not waive a claim that the state failed to afford him the constitutional right to a speedy trial. Although conceding that the petitioner failed to raise a sixth amendment claim ""in express terms"" in state court, the court held that petitioner ""did present the substance of a constitutional claim in that the claim founded on state law implicates constitutional concerns."" Patterson, who was represented by counsel, invoked only Illinois' speedy trial act, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch 38 para. 103-5(a). Counsel cited the Illinois statute and Illinois case law interpreting it; Patterson did not invoke the sixth amendment or cite case law interpreting it. Statutory speedy trial rights are distinct from constitutional ones, and it is apparent to us that Patterson did not make a constitutional claim in state court on direct appeal. The state's appellate court invoked this procedural bar and refused to consider the constitutional claim when Patterson sought collateral relief. Since Patterson has not alleged cause for or prejudice from his failure, we may not consider his claim. Williams v. Chrans, 894 F.2d 928, 937 (7th Cir. 1990).