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.

Stanley v. Flagg

June 1, 2006

LESLIE STANLEY, PETITIONER,
v.
JULIUS FLAGG, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

This Order deals with two motions filed shortly after the Court granted Petitioner Leslie Stanley's § 2254 Habeas Petition on March 28, 2006 (see Doc. 88), finding that Petitioner was denied his right to effective assistance of trial counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Petitioner was ordered to be released from incarceration within 120 days from the date of the Order unless the State of Illinois should decide to retry him (Id. at 38). Respondent has pursued an appeal of the Court's decision, thereby prompting his filing of a Motion For Stay of Judgment Pending Appeal (Doc. 91) to which Petitioner has filed his opposing Response (Doc. 98).

In addition, Petitioner has filed a Motion for Release on Bond Pending Appeal and supporting memorandum (Docs. 96 & 97). Respondent subsequently filed a combined Reply to Petitioner's Response to the Motion to Stay and Response to Petitioner's Motion for Release on Bond (Doc. 100). Lastly, Petitioner has filed a Reply to Respondent's Response to the Motion for Release on Bond (Doc. 101). Because the merits of the two motions at hand are so similar, the Court will conjoin them into one analysis.

II. ANALYSIS

A. LEGAL STANDARD

1. Staying an Appeal

When determining whether to stay an order or judgment pending appeal, there are several factors the Court must consider: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)(internal citations omitted). Additional considerations for the Court are whether the habeas petitioner is a flight risk and/or a danger to the public, and the state's interest in continuing custody and rehabilitation pending a final determination of the case on appeal. Id. at 777.

2. Release Pending Appeal

Petitioner makes his Motion for Release on Bond Pending Appeal pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 23(c) (Doc. 96),which states, in pertinent part:

While a decision ordering the release of a prisoner is under review, the prisoner must -- unless the court or judge rendering the decision, or the court of appeals, or the Supreme Court, or a judge or justice of either court orders otherwise--be released on personal recognizance, with or without surety.

C. STAYING PETITIONER'S RELEASE PENDING RESPONDENT'S APPEAL

Petitioner opposes a stay of judgment (Doc. 98), arguing Respondent has failed to demonstrate that the relevant factors weigh in favor of granting a stay. The Court will analyze whether the factors weigh in favor of granting a stay. If the Court determines these factors do not weigh in favor of a stay, ...


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.