Jamison v Watson
Filing
15
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 7/25/2018. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, d/e 8 is GRANTED. Petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, d/e 1 is DENIED and Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, d/e 14 is DISMISSED. A Certificate of Appealability is also DENIED. Case CLOSED. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION) (MAS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 27 July, 2018 03:39:25 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
DONNELL JAMISON,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
JASON GARNETT,1
Chief of Parole,
Respondent.
No. 17-3119
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
In May 2017, Petitioner Donnell Jamison filed a Petition Under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State
Custody (d/e 1) [hereinafter Petition]. Petitioner argues that the
consecutive nature of his imprisonment terms increased his
sentence without due process.
The Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted.
See Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
When Petitioner filed his Petition, he was housed at the Western Illinois
Correctional Center. In November 2017, Petitioner was released and placed on
parole. Therefore, the Court substituted Chief of Parole Jason Garnett as
Respondent.
1
Page 1 of 11
United States District Courts. For the reasons that follow, the
Petition is DENIED. The Court could dismiss the Petition because
Petitioner has not exhausted all of his available state court
remedies. However, the Court chooses to review the Petition on the
merits and finds that the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Dellinger v.
Bowen, 301 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2002) forecloses relief on Petitioner’s
claim. Therefore, the Petition is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
On December 14, 2016, the Circuit Court of DuPage County,
Illinois, sentenced Petitioner in two related cases in which Petitioner
had been convicted of identity theft. See People v. Jamison, Nos.
2016-cf-1517, 2016-cf-1793 (Ill. Cir. Ct.) (d/e 1-1 at 11-12). In case
number 1793, the Circuit Court sentenced Petitioner to one year of
imprisonment and one year of mandatory supervised release. In
case number 1517, the Circuit Court sentenced Petitioner to three
years and six months of imprisonment and one year of mandatory
supervised release, to run concurrently with the sentence in case
number 1793. The Circuit Court further ordered that the sentence
in case number 1517 run consecutively to the sentences imposed in
two earlier Cook County cases: 2014-cr-8879 and 2015-cr-1230.
Page 2 of 11
Petitioner states that he had been released on electronic monitoring
in the two Cook County cases on December 22, 2014, and that he
was still on electronic monitoring on September 16, 2016, when he
committed the offenses that formed the bases of the DuPage County
cases. Petition at 5. Petitioner asserts that his consecutive
sentence violated Illinois law.
Petitioner filed habeas petitions in the DuPage County Circuit
Court, which denied the petitions on April 19, 2017. See d/e 1-1 at
8-9. Petitioner also sought leave to file a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus in the Illinois Supreme Court, which denied that
motion on March 28, 2017. See d/e 1-1 at 7.
On May 2, 2017, Petitioner filed the § 2254 Petition at issue
herein. Petitioner argues that the DuPage County Circuit Court
erred when it ordered his sentences to run consecutively to the
earlier Cook County cases. He asserts that Illinois law, as applied
to Petitioner, establishes that the Circuit Court should have ordered
the sentences to run concurrently to the earlier cases. According to
Petitioner, this error violated his Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process rights.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Page 3 of 11
Section 2254 provides for a federal writ of habeas corpus for a
person in state custody when the individual is being held in
violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). This Court’s review of state court decisions is
limited by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. 28
U.S.C. § 2254. If a state court adjudicated a claim on the merits,
this Court can grant relief only if the state court adjudication
resulted in (1) “a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”; or (2) “a
decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the
facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court
proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (d)(2). The federal habeas
court reviews the decision of the last state court to rule on the
merits of the petitioner’s claim. Coleman v. Hardy, 690 F.3d 811,
814 (7th Cir. 2012).
III. ANALYSIS
In his Petition, Petitioner challenges the DuPage County
Circuit Court’s decision to make his sentences run consecutively to
the Cook County sentences. See Petition at 3 (d/e 1). On
Page 4 of 11
December 20, 2017, Respondent, the U.S. Government, filed a
Motion to Dismiss Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (d/e 8).
Respondent argues that the Petition should be dismissed because
Petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies. Respondent
notes that an appeal from the DuPage County Circuit Court cases is
pending in the Second District of the Illinois Appellate Court.
Respondent states that, as of December 11, 2017, Petitioner’s
appellate brief was due in April 2018. Motion to Dismiss at 2 (d/e
8). This Court confirmed by phone call to the clerk’s office of the
Second District that an appeal from the DuPage County cases was
still pending as of the issuance of this opinion. See Jamison v.
People, Nos. 2-16-1083, 2-16-1084 (Ill. App. Ct.).
A habeas petitioner must clear two procedural hurdles before
the Court will consider the merits of the petition: 1) the petitioner
must exhaust all state remedies and 2) he must not procedurally
default on his claim(s). The state courts must have a “full and fair
opportunity” to address the petitioner’s federal claims before those
claims are presented to the federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel,
526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). Therefore, before seeking habeas relief,
the petitioner must bring his claim(s) through “one complete round
Page 5 of 11
of the State’s established appellate review process.” Id.; accord Pole
v. Randolph, 570 F.3d 922, 934 (7th Cir. 2009). In Illinois, one
complete round entails presenting the claim(s) to the circuit court,
the district court, and in a Petition for Leave to Appeal (PLA) to the
Illinois Supreme Court, which exercises discretion over the selection
of cases it reviews. O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 846. Petitioner has not
yet gone through one full round of state court because the appeal
from the sentencing court remains pending.
Secondly, neither Petitioner nor Respondent has indicated
whether the consecutive nature of the sentences is at issue before
the Second District. If the issue has been raised on appeal, the
claim will not be exhausted until the Illinois Supreme Court
declines the secondary appeal or accepts the PLA and resolves the
issue.
On the other hand, if Petitioner does not raise the consecutive
issue on appeal, he will have procedurally defaulted on his claim.
Procedural default occurs when petitioner has not exhausted the
claims but the petitioner cannot return to the state court. Guest v.
McCann, 474 F.3d 926, 930 (7th Cir. 2007) (finding that the
petitioner who did not present his claim to the state court and no
Page 6 of 11
longer had time to do so had procedurally defaulted unless he could
show cause for the default and prejudice or that ignoring the
default was necessary to prevent a fundamental miscarriage of
justice).
Even though Petitioner has not exhausted his state court
remedies, this Court may nonetheless address the merits of the
Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) (“An application for a writ of
habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the
failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the
courts of the State”). The Court chooses to address the merits here.
Petitioner argues that the consecutive sentences violate his
Due Process rights because they violate Illinois law as set forth in
People v. Lashley, 57 N.E.3d 780 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). Respondent
contends that the Petition should be dismissed because it does not
raise a claim for federal habeas relief. Respondent asserts that the
Petition raises only errors in the application of state law, and,
therefore, habeas relief is unavailable because the Petition alleges
no violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States.
Page 7 of 11
In Lashley, the First District Appellate Court interpreted a
state sentencing statute that provided that a sentence for a new
offense that defendant committed while in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (IDOC) shall run consecutively to the
existing sentence. 730 ILCS 5/5-8-4(d)(6) (West 2012). The First
District ruled that a defendant who was on monitored release as
part of an impact incarceration program (boot camp) was not held
under IDOC custody within the meaning of the statute when he
committed the new offense and, therefore, the new sentence was to
run concurrently with the existing sentence. Petitioner asserts that
he was on monitored release when he committed the offenses that
formed the bases of the DuPage County cases and, therefore, his
sentences should run concurrently with his Cook County
sentences.
Whether the ruling in Lashley applies to Petitioner and
whether the DuPage County Circuit Court incorrectly applied the
statute to Petitioner are questions of state law. Federal habeas
relief is unavailable to remedy errors of state law. Dellinger, 301
F.3d at 764. A federal writ of habeas corpus is only available to a
Page 8 of 11
person who is being held in state custody in violation of federal law.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
Petitioner attempts to present a constitutional issue by
claiming that his right to due process was violated by the
consecutive sentences. However, Petitioner fails to demonstrate
how this issue is constitutional and not exclusively a state law
matter. Petitioner’s claim rests solely on Illinois sentencing law and
the state court’s determination of his sentences. As Respondent
noted, “it is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine
state-court determinations on state-law questions.” Estelle v.
McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Therefore, an error in the
interpretation of the state statute or in the application of the state
case law does not present a cognizable claim for federal habeas
relief. Dellinger, 301 F.3d at 764.
Therefore, Dellinger forecloses relief on Petitioner’s
habeas claim. Petitioner cannot show that the state court’s
ruling was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established federal law, or that the
decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the
Page 9 of 11
facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court
proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (d)(2).
IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
When the Court enters a final order adverse to the petitioner,
the Court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability. See Rule
11(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts. A certificate of appealability may issue only where
the petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A substantial showing
exists where “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that
matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a
different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Peterson v. Douma,
751 F.3d 524, 528 (7th Cir. 2014), quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court finds that no reasonable jurist
would debate whether Petitioner is entitled to habeas relief under
28 U.S.C. § 2254. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a
certificate of appealability.
V. CONCLUSION
Page 10 of 11
For the reasons stated, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (d/e 8) is GRANTED.
Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas
Corpus by a Person in State Custody (d/e 1) is DENIED and
Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 14) is DISMISSED.
A Certificate of Appealability is also DENIED.
CASE CLOSED.
ENTER: July 25, 2018
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 11 of 11
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?