United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, E. D
September 21, 1982
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. MICHAEL J. HANRAHAN, PETITIONER,
DANIEL C. BOSSE, RESPONDENT.
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.
Acting on information given them by Hanrahan's sister Mary
Ellen and evidence
found at his mother's home, police arrested Hanrahan in the
early morning hours of November 22, 1974 at the fraternity
house where he was living. They advised Hanrahan of his
Miranda rights, then handcuffed him and transported him to
the police station for questioning. At the station Hanrahan
gave eight statements to police and prosecutors in response to
sporadic questioning over an 18-hour period. On each occasion
Hanrahan was read his Miranda rights before he was
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 S.Ct. 3037, 3052, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976)
[W]here the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair
litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may
not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that
evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search and seizure was
introduced at trial.
Courts have since extended the Stone analysis to bar federal
habeas review of a fully litigated claim contesting admission
of a confession obtained during illegal detention. Montes v.
Jenkins, 626 F.2d 584, 590 (7th Cir. 1980); Morgan v.
Estelle, 588 F.2d 934(5th Cir. 1979).
Both the state trial and appellate courts rejected Hanrahan's
claim of illegal arrest after a full and fair hearing on the
merits. Stone and its progeny preclude habeas review here of
the same Fourth Amendment contention.*fn2 See United States
ex rel. Faulisi v. Pinkney, 611 F.2d 176, 178 (7th Cir. 1979).
Hanrahan's second argument, claiming error in the Illinois
Supreme Court's granting of mandamus, is equally without merit.
Hanrahan had moved the trial court to reduce his sentence under
Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 38, § 1005-8-1(d), which allowed reduction or
modification of a sentence not later than 30 days after
sentence was imposed. Hanrahan argued the stay of execution of
his sentence pending appeal had tolled the 30-day period until
the Appellate Court mandate was lodged with the Circuit Court.
As a matter of statutory construction the Illinois Supreme
Court held a Circuit Court had power to reduce a sentence only
within 30 days after its actual imposition. Hanrahan now urges
that decision was based on an unconstitutional statute, was
contrary to the intent of the law and violated his Fourteenth
Amendment rights to equal protection and due process.
As Justice Stevens said earlier this year in Engle v. Isaac,
___ U.S. ___, ___, 102 S.Ct. 1558, 1576, 71 L.Ed.2d 783 (1982):
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed if
it merely attaches a constitutional label to factual
allegations that do not describe a violation of any
Interpretation of a state statute is a matter for the state's
own courts. Israel v. Odom, 521 F.2d 1370
, 1376 (7th Cir.
1975). Absent any federal constitutional violation, no federal
court can encroach on the state court's construction and
application of its own sentencing statutes. See United States
ex rel. Henderson v. Morris, 670 F.2d 699
, 702 (7th Cir.
1982). Hanrahan cannot escape that limitation on this Court's
authority with empty incantations of constitutional error.
Lacking any substantive allegations of constitutional scope,
Hanrahan's challenge to reinstatement of the original sentences
must be rejected.
It plainly appears from the face of Hanrahan's petition and
accompanying exhibits that he is not entitled to habeas corpus
relief. This Court orders summary dismissal of this action
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.