Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
U.S. v. BIGLEY
June 14, 2004.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel., SHAWN BAHRS, Petitioner,
KIM BIGLEY, Warden, Shawnee Correction Center, Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: SAMUEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge
This matter is before the court on Petitioner Shawn Bahrs'
("Petitioner") petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has also filed a petition for writ of
habeas ad testificandum. For the reasons stated below we deny the
Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus. In addition,
Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas ad testificandum is
denied as moot.
Petitioner is a prisoner in the State of Illinois and is
currently being held at the Shawnee Correctional Center in
Vienna, Illinois. Kim Bigley ("Respondent") is the warden of that institution.
Petitioner was charged in the Circuit Court of DuPage County
("Trial Court") with one count of unlawful possession of a stolen
vehicle; one count of unlawful possession of a converted vehicle;
one count of aggravated driving while license revoked; and two
counts of aggravated driving under the influence. Following a
jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of unlawful possession of a
converted vehicle, aggravated driving while license revoked, and
two counts of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol.
Petitioner was acquitted of unlawful possession of a stolen
vehicle. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of twelve years in
the Illinois Department of Corrections as a Class X offender for
the offense of unlawful possession of a converted vehicle.
Petitioner received sentences of three years as to each of the
remaining convictions, to be served concurrently to each other
and to the twelve year sentence.
Petitioner appealed his convictions and sentences to the
Illinois Appellate Court, Second District ("Illinois Appellate
Court") and raised the following arguments: (1) whether the Trial
Court confused the jury by giving the jury separate verdict
guilty forms; (2) whether the jury's conviction on the unlawful
possession of converted vehicle was legally inconsistent to its
finding for acquittal for unlawful possession of a stolen
vehicle; and (3) whether the Trial Court abused it discretion in
imposing a twelve year sentence. The Illinois Appellate Court
affirmed the convictions and sentences of the Trial Court.
Petitioner then filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois. The petition
for leave to appeal was denied by the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief in
the Trial Court and raised five issues. The Trial Court denied
the petition for post-conviction relief and Petitioner did not
file an appeal.
On May 28, 2003, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus ("Petition") with this court. In his Petition,
Petitioner alleges (1) that he was improperly convicted of
unlawful possession of a converted vehicle because he was found
not guilty of possession of a stolen or converted vehicle; (2)
that his due process rights were violated because the Trial
Court's jury instruction was defective; and that (3) his defense
counsel in the Trial Court was ineffective for failing to object
to the jury/verdict forms and arguing two different theories to
A district court may entertain a habeas corpus petition from a
"person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only
on the grounds that he is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 a habeas corpus petition
shall not be granted:
on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State Court . . . unless the
adjudication of the claim . . . (1) 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; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of
the evidence presented in the State court
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
A federal court will not address a question of federal law
presented in a habeas corpus petition brought to contest a state
court ruling if "the state decision rests on a state procedural
ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate
to support the judgment." Page v. Frank, 343 F.3d 901, 905
(7th Cir. 2003). In order to avoid a procedural default on a
claim presented in a habeas corpus petition, a petitioner must
"give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any
constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the
Buy This Entire Record For