The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shadur, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Michael Hanrahan ("Hanrahan") has filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus, which comes before this Court for preliminary
consideration under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases. Because the petition and attached exhibits do not
present a cognizable claim for habeas relief, the petition is
Hanrahan and his father Homer were charged with the murder,
aggravated kidnapping and aggravated battery of Hanrahan's
mother. After a jury found Hanrahan guilty of the second and
third charges, he was sentenced to concurrent terms of 10 to 25
years for aggravated kidnapping and 3 to 10 years for
aggravated battery. Both convictions were upheld on appeal.
People v. Hanrahan, 64 Ill. App.3d 207, 20 Ill.Dec. 866,
380 N.E.2d 1075 (1st Dist. 1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 828, 100
S.Ct. 53, 62 L.Ed.2d 36 (1979).
After certiorari was denied Hanrahan moved for reduction of
sentence before the judge who had sentenced him. His motion was
granted, the trial court reducing the sentences to 5 years'
probation for aggravated kidnapping and 1 to 10 years for
That action was challenged by the State's institution of
original mandamus proceedings in the Illinois Supreme Court.
That Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the trial judge
to vacate and expunge his order reducing Hanrahan's sentences
and to issue a mittimus conforming to the sentences originally
imposed. People ex rel. Carey v. Collins, 81 Ill.2d 118, 39
Ill.Dec. 795, 405 N.E.2d 774 (1980). Shortly thereafter
Hanrahan filed a post-conviction petition in state court
challenging his conviction on grounds not germane to the issues
raised here. Following denial of that petition Hanrahan
appealed to the state Appellate Court (the appeal is still
Hanrahan now asserts two grounds for habeas corpus relief:
(1) In his original trial the failure to suppress inculpatory
statements taken from him after his arrest was constitutional
(2) In the mandamus proceeding the writ directing vacation of
the reduction of his sentence was erroneous and deprived him
of due process and equal protection in violation of the
Both contentions must fail.
Before trial Hanrahan moved to quash his arrest and to suppress
the statements. After extensive testimony the trial court
denied the motion. On appeal Hanrahan argued the statements
were the product of an illegal investigatory arrest, so the
Fourth Amendment*fn1 required their exclusion. Because it
found the facts known to the police when they arrested Hanrahan
supported a reasonable belief he had committed battery upon his
mother, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's denial of
the suppression motion.
Having lost his Fourth Amendment battle in the state court
system, Hanrahan now seeks federal collateral review of his
state conviction on the same ground. Stone v. Powell,
428 U.S. 465, 494, 96 ...