Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

ENIS v. SCHOMIG

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division


January 6, 2005.

ANTHONY ENIS, Petitioner,
v.
JAMES SCHOMIG Respondent.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: SAMUEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on Anthony Enis' ("Enis") request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). For the reasons stated below, Enis' request for a certificate of appealability is denied.

BACKGROUND

  Enis was convicted of the murder of Merlinda Entrata ("Entrata") and sentenced to death in a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois ("trial court"). After exhausting his state court remedies on direct appeal and in post-conviction proceedings, Enis filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. On September 29, 2004, in a memorandum opinion, we denied Enis' petition for writ of habeas corpus. Enis v. Schomig, 2004 WL 2203420 (N.D. Ill. 2004). Enis now seeks a certificate of appealability.

  LEGAL STANDARD

  In order to appeal the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus, a petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Montgomery v. Davis, 362 F.3d 956, 957 (7th Cir. 2004). A court should only issue a certificate of appealability "if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A petitioner must also show that "reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were `adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Slack v. McDonnell, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

  DISCUSSION

  In Enis' request for a certificate of appealability, Enis argues that this court should issue a certificate of appealability for the following claims raised in his Petition: claim I, relating to trial court's denial of a motion to suppress; claim III, relating to ineffective assistance of counsel allegations; claim IV, relating to an allegation of a due process violation; and claim VII, relating to an allegation of a Brady violation. On September 29, 2004, in a memorandum opinion, we denied Enis' petition for writ of habeas corpus and extensively addressed all of his claims, including claims I, III, IV, and VII. Enis, in his request for certificate of appealability, has attempted to rehash the same arguments raised in his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Enis has failed to make a substantial showing that he has been denied a constitutional right. Enis has also failed to show that reasonable jurists could agree or debate that claims I, III, IV, and VII of his petition for writ of habeas corpus should be granted. In addition, Enis has not presented any meritorious arguments that would indicate that the issues presented in claims I, III, IV, and VII deserve "encouragement to proceed further." Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Therefore, we deny Enis' request for a certificate of appealability.

  CONCLUSION

  Based on the foregoing, we deny Enis' request for a certificate of appealability.

20050106

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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