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.

Stanley v. Bartley

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


March 6, 2007

LESLIE STANLEY, PETITIONER,
v.
KEN BARTLEY, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.

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

ORDER

Defendant has filed an Amended Motion for Extension of Time Within Which to Retry Petition (Doc. 117), to which Petitioner has filed an opposing Response (Doc. 119). In this Motion, Defendant seeks an additional 90 day extension of time within which the State must retry Petitioner, up to and including June 5, 2007 (Doc. 117, ¶ 5). This matter arises from the Order in which the Court granted Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus on March 28, 2006 (Doc. 88), which was later affirmed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Doc. 110). In a subsequent Order, the Court clarified that if the State did not retry Petitioner by March 7, 2007, Petitioner should be released (Doc. 113).

Since that time, the State has determined it will retry Petitioner. However, there has been some delay in the proceedings, which the State has shown is largely attributable to Petitioner. Further, Petitioner is currently out on bond, pending his retrial. While his travel is restricted to the state of Illinois, this is not as detrimental of a situation as if he were currently detained, awaiting a trial now continued for another two months.*fn1 Moreover, the delay in obtaining an appointed public defender, an issue Petitioner also addresses in his Response, does not seem to be through fault of Respondent. Nor does the fact that Petitioner's Motion in Limine in state court was denied, thereby requiring Petitioner to arrange for the remand of a trial witness, Robert Brock, to the custody of St. Clair County.*fn2

The time necessary to remand Brock appears to be what necessitated the continuance of the retrial.

As valid reasons for the continuance exist, the delay was not attributable to Respondent and because Petitioner is currently out on bond, the Court finds the Motion (Doc. 117) should be GRANTED. Accordingly, Respondent's time to retry Petitioner shall be extended up to and including June 5, 2007, on which date if trial has not yet begun, Petitioner shall be released.

IT IS SO ORDERED

David RHerndon United States District Judge


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.