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.

U.S. EX REL. TORRES v. CHANDLER

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


June 14, 2005.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. ANTONIO TORRES, Petitioner,
v.
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 Opinion.

  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 would suffice.

  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 And Torres' position as to the witnesses issue is further defeated conclusively by the unpublished orders of the Illinois Appellate Court for the First Judicial District in rejecting his direct appeal (that order was entered December 28, 2001 in Case No.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.


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.