United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
June 14, 2005.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. ANTONIO TORRES, Petitioner,
NEDRA CHANDLER, Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MILTON SHADUR, Senior District Judge
SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On May 19, 2005 this Court issued its memorandum opinion and
order ("Order") dismissing the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Section 2254")
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") by which Antonio
Torres ("Torres") has sought to attack his state court conviction
on charge of delivery of a controlled substance, pursuant to
which he is serving a 25-year sentence. On June 9 the Clerk's
Office received Torres' self-prepared Motion To Alter or Amend
the Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 59(e).*fn1
For the reasons briefly stated here, Torres' motion is denied.
To begin with, Torres does not speak at all to this Court's
analysis, concluding at Opinion 4, that his Petition is untimely
and that under that analysis "untimeliness alone could support dismissal of the Petition under the statute." This Court could
well dispatch Torres' effort to secure federal habeas relief
solely on that score, just as it could have done in the original
But again, as the original Opinion has reflected and as this
supplement will elaborate, Torres also fails on other grounds.
Essentially he contends that the Opinion failed to address one of
his claims the asserted denial of the compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor in terms of the constitutional
protection provided by the Sixth Amendment.*fn2 That
contention fails for two independent reasons, either of which
For one thing, Opinion at 6-7 has already explained how Torres
flunks the second prong of the test as to the allegedly
ineffective assistance of counsel identified in Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984). And Torres' position as to
the witnesses issue is further defeated conclusively by the
unpublished orders of the Illinois Appellate Court for the First
Judicial District in rejecting his direct appeal (that order was entered December 28, 2001 in Case No. 1-00-1212) and in affirming
the denial of state post-conviction relief (that order was dated
December 11, 2003 in Case No. 1-02-3193). Those orders turned
away Torres' challenges to both the trial court's and his
counsel's asserted failures to allow or to procure certain
witnesses on his behalf in each instance the Appellate Court's
ruling was based on an independent and adequate state ground.
That being so, Torres cannot point to those asserted failures
as a basis for federal habeas relief. What he has proffered is
insufficient to surmount the hurdles that the law erects when
such state law procedural defaults exist.
In summary, more than one reason calls for denial of Torres'
current motion. This Court orders such denial.