## Facts

- Darren Boerckel, an Illinois prisoner, was convicted of rape, burglary, and aggravated battery; the prosecution’s key evidence was his written confession.
- He received concurrent sentences, including 20 to 60 years for rape.
- On direct appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Boerckel raised multiple claims, including federal constitutional challenges to the confession and the sufficiency of the evidence.
- The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the convictions.
- Boerckel then filed a petition for leave to appeal (PLA) to the Illinois Supreme Court, raising only three issues and omitting claims that his confession was coerced, his Miranda waiver was invalid, and the evidence was insufficient.
- The Illinois Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.
- Boerckel filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising, among other claims, the issues omitted from his PLA.

## Issues

1. Whether § 2254’s exhaustion requirement obligates a state prisoner to present federal constitutional claims to the state’s highest court through a discretionary review petition when that petition is part of the state’s ordinary appellate review process.
2. Whether failing to include claims in such a discretionary petition results in procedural default barring federal habeas review absent an exception.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit (6–3).
- The Court held that exhaustion requires giving state courts one full opportunity to resolve federal constitutional claims by invoking one complete round of the state’s established appellate review process.
- Because Illinois’s ordinary appellate review includes a discretionary PLA to the Illinois Supreme Court, Boerckel was required to present his federal claims in that petition to satisfy exhaustion.
- Boerckel’s claims omitted from the PLA were treated as procedurally defaulted for federal habeas purposes (subject to traditional exceptions such as cause and prejudice or miscarriage of justice).

## Legal Principles

- A state prisoner may not obtain federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless state remedies are exhausted.
- Exhaustion requires presenting federal claims through “one complete round” of the state’s established appellate review process.
- When state law permits a prisoner to raise claims in the state’s highest court through an available discretionary procedure that is part of ordinary appellate review, the prisoner must use that procedure to exhaust.
- The fact that discretionary review is unlikely to be granted, or is intended to focus on broader questions, does not eliminate the obligation to present claims there for exhaustion purposes.
- Failure to present claims at that stage generally results in procedural default, barring federal habeas review unless an established exception applies.

## Conclusion

The Court held that federal habeas petitioners must present their federal claims to the state’s highest court in a discretionary review petition when that step is part of the state’s ordinary appellate review process; omitting claims from that petition generally causes procedural default in later federal habeas proceedings.


O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999)