Part 1 of this series described the underlying facts of Donnell’s case, what happened at his trial, and what occurred on appeal. Part 2 detailed Donnell’s case as it moved through postconviction proceedings, also known as collateral review. In this final part, I discuss Donnell’s habeas proceedings.

The Habeas Clock

Donnell, still wishing to challenge his sentence, had only the federal habeas process available to do so. The term “habeas corpus” is a Latin phrase that means “you shall have the body.” An imprisoned individual can ask for the court to determine whether his confinement is unlawful, or violative of the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike post-conviction proceedings in Indiana, which have no deadline to file, federal habeas proceedings do. Determining when a federal habeas petition must be filed to be timely can be tricky. Years ago I created a worksheet to calculate the date.

The first two steps of the worksheet determine the “finality date.” Generally, a petition for writ of federal habeas corpus must be filed within one year of the finality date. The filing of a P.C.R. petition stops that one-year clock until the post-conviction proceeding concludes. Thereafter, the one-year habeas clock restarts.

Using the worksheet in Donnell’s case:

• STEP 1:         Yes, Donnell pursued a direct appeal after his convictions and sentences.

• STEP 2:         Yes, Donnell sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. He did not seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus, the finality date was November 17, 2015: the Court of Appeals’ direct appeal decision was certified on August 19, 2015, and the 90-day period for seeking review from the U.S. Supreme Court through a petition for writ of certiorari expired on November 17, 2015.

• STEP 3:         Donnell filed his P.C.R. petition on August 11, 2016, 98 days shy of the habeas deadline. The “habeas clock” stopped on August 11, 2016. The clock restarted on January 22, 2021, when the post-conviction proceedings had concluded (in Donnell’s case, the Indiana Supreme Court had denied his petition for rehearing).

Normally, Donnell would have had only 98 days from January 22, 2021 to file his habeas petition. But there are circumstances where the 1-year habeas clock may start over, as shown under Step 3 of the worksheet.

One such circumstance is when there is a new, intervening state-court judgment issued in the case. If that judgment is the reason for a defendant’s confinement, the habeas clock starts over. The Indiana Supreme Court’s revision of Donnell’s overall sentence to 100 years was a new judgment and returned the habeas clock to zero. Thus, when Donnell filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus in March 2022, it was timely.

Habeas Claims

The habeas process is not simply a second bite at the postconviction apple. First, only federal constitutional claims may be raised. Second, those claims usually must be raised first in state court, to give states the opportunity to correct their own errors. Third, federal courts show a high level of deference to state court decisions. To obtain habeas relief, a petitioner must either show the state court’s decision was contrary to, or unreasonably applied, clearly established federal law from the U.S. Supreme Court. Or the petitioner must show the state court decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.

This deference applies, however, only to those claims adjudicated on the merits by the state court. If a petitioner raises a claim the state court declined to address, no deference is given.

In his habeas petition, Donnell argued that his 100-year sentence was a mandatory, de facto life sentence without parole that violated the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, due to Donnell’s young age when he committed the crimes. The federal district court disagreed, and Donnell appealed.

Like the district court, the Seventh Circuit held that it was required to show deference to the Indiana Supreme Court decision because the Court had decided Donnell’s claim on its merits. Under the more deferential standard, the Seventh Circuit held that the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision was not contrary to clearly established federal law. Thus, Donnell’s 100-year sentence remains.

Conclusion

So what may be next for Donnell? he has filed a petition for rehearing in the Seventh Circuit. If his petition is denied, he could file a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case. Such requests are rarely granted.

If the law changes in the future in some way that is favorable to Donnell, particularly with respect to the Eighth Amendment or Indiana’s constitutional counterpart, Donell could ask permission to file a second petition for post-conviction relief.

Donnell’s best option, though, may be a request to modify his sentence. In July 2023, Indiana passed a law that allows juvenile offenders like Donnell who were tried as adults to seek a sentence modification after serving twenty actual years of his sentence for murder. Unlike other sentence modification requests, the petitioner does not have to first obtain consent from the prosecutor to seek a sentence modification.

Donnell will be eligible to seek a sentence modification under this new statute in May 2033.