Stokes v. Butler

Filing 5

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 9/21/2015. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARCELL STOKES,
Petitioner,
vs.

Case No. 15-cv-967-DRH

KIMBERLY BUTLER,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Petitioner Marcell Stokes is currently incarcerated at the Menard
Correctional Center in Menard, Illinois. (Doc. 1 at 1.) Proceeding pro se, Stokes
has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
challenging his 1998 state convictions for first-degree murder and attempted
armed robbery in the Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago, Illinois. (Id.) Stokes
alleges that his convictions were improper because of jury selection errors, a lack
of evidence, and inadequate counsel. (Id. at 12-30.)
This matter is now before the Court for a preliminary review of Stokes’s
habeas petition. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts provides that, upon preliminary review by the district court
judge, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the
petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.”

Page 1 of 4

Background
In 1998, Stokes was charged and convicted of first-degree murder and
attempted armed robbery in connection with the death of Shaun Garrett. (Doc. 1
at 1.) He was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. (Id.) Stokes appealed his
convictions to the Appellate Court of Illinois, arguing racial discrimination in jury
selection, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct.
(See id. at 2.) The appellate court remanded the case back to the circuit court for
a Batson-related hearing, and left Stokes’s remaining arguments unresolved
pending the outcome of the hearing in the trial court. (Id.) The trial court held a
hearing but Stokes seemingly did not prevail, and the appellate court upheld
Stokes’s convictions on March 31, 2010. (Id.) Stokes’s petition for rehearing was
denied on April 15, 2010, and the Supreme Court of Illinois declined leave to
appeal on September 29, 2010. (Id.)
On December 21, 2010, Stokes filed a state post-conviction petition,
claiming that his convictions were the product of insufficient evidence and that his
trial counsel was ineffective. (Id. at 3.) The trial court denied the petition on
August 10, 2012. (Id.) Stokes appealed, and his appointed counsel on appeal
seemingly failed to raise some of the arguments that Stokes raised in his state
post-conviction petition. (See id. at 3 & 6.) Stokes’s post-conviction appeal was
denied on December 2, 2014, and the Supreme Court of Illinois declined to hear
his case on March 25, 2014. (Id. at 3.)
On August 31, 2015, Stokes filed a petition in this Court. (Id. at 1.)

Page 2 of 4

Discussion
While Stokes’s federal petition is a bit difficult to follow, he seemingly raises
three grounds of error:

he says that the trial judge did not focus on the

appropriate inquiry during the Batson hearing on remand; that there was
insufficient evidence to support his guilt; and that his post-conviction counsel was
inadequate because counsel failed to appeal some of the bases of error that
Stokes brought in his trial court post-conviction petition. (Id. at 6.) While there
are some potential pitfalls to Stokes’s petition, there is insufficient information
before the Court at this time upon which to conclude that dismissal at the
preliminary stage is appropriate.

Accordingly, Respondent will be required to

answer the petition or otherwise file a responsive pleading.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 shall proceed past preliminary screening.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall answer the petition
within thirty days of the date this order is entered (on or before October 21,
2015). 1 This order to respond does not preclude the State from making whatever
waiver, exhaustion, or timeliness arguments it may wish to present. Service upon
the Illinois Attorney General, Criminal Appeals Bureau, 100 West Randolph, 12th
Floor, Chicago, Illinois shall constitute sufficient service.
The response date ordered herein is controlling. Any date that CM/ECF should
generate in the course of this litigation is a guideline only.
1

Page 3 of 4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this
cause is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud for further pre-trial
proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this entire matter be REFERRED to
Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud for disposition, as contemplated by Local Rule
72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), should all parties consent to such a referral.
Petitioner is ADVISED of his continuing obligations to keep the Clerk (and
Respondent) informed of any change in his whereabouts during this action. This
notification shall be done in writing and not later than seven days after a transfer
or other change in address occurs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 21st day of September, 2015

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2015.09.21
13:56:27 -05'00'

______________________________
Judge David R. Herndon
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4