Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U.S. EX REL KIDD v. WALLS

April 3, 2003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. NATHAN KIDD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JONATHAN R. WALLS, WARDEN, MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Charles P. Kocoras, Chief Judge United States District Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on Petitioner Nathan Kidd's request for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition.

BACKGROUND

Kidd is serving a seventy-year prison sentence for first degree murder in the custody of the State of Illinois. Kidd pled guilty to the offense and was sentenced on June 14, 1999. He did not directly appeal his conviction or sentence, and they became final on July 14, 1999 — the deadline for an appeal. On March 3, 2000, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief in Illinois state court. The petition claimed the following violations of his rights:

1. Ineffective assistance of counsel;

2. Illegal search and seizure;

3. No probable cause for arrest;

4. His confession was coerced; and

5. He was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The trial court denied the petition, and Kidd appealed. In his appeal, Kidd altered his strategy for relief Instead of arguing the five above-mentioned grounds for relief, Kidd only argued that his seventy-year sentence was unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), which issued during the intervening time period. The Illinois appellate court ultimately denied the appeal. Kidd's petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois was also denied. On November 21, 2002, Kidd filed this federal habeas action on the basis of all six of the above-mentioned grounds for relief

LEGAL STANDARD

Kidd must demonstrate that the adverse state court proceeding "resulted in 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." 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 379 (2000).

DISCUSSION

Kidd alleges that his conviction/sentence are unconstitutional for the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.