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.

Lash v. Rednour

June 29, 2010

DALE W. LASH, PETITIONER,
v.
DAVE REDNOUR, WARDEN,*FN1 RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Mills, U.S. District Judge

OPINION

Murder, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated vehicular hijacking and endangering the health of a child.

Jury trial: guilty on all counts.

There followed six appeals -- all denied. This Petition for Habeas Corpus followed. It is also Denied.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 1, 1999, Lori Hayes was shopping with her infant daughter at the Shoe Carnival store in the Parkway Pointe Shopping Center in Springfield, Illinois. During the afternoon, the Petitioner kidnapped Ms. Hayes and her baby, transporting them in Ms. Hayes's Jeep. The Petitioner raped Ms. Hayes, and then shot her in the back of the head at point blank range, leaving her body in a cornfield southwest of Springfield.

The Petitioner then drove back to the shopping area, abandoning the Jeep in the parking lot of Parkway Pointe Cinema with the unattended baby inside. Theater customers eventually heard the baby crying and called the police. The infant was reunited with family, and Ms. Hayes's body was later recovered.

The Petitioner was convicted by a jury of first degree murder, aggravated criminal sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated vehicular hijacking, and endangering the health of a child in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Illinois. He was sentenced to death.*fn2

The Petitioner unsuccessfully pursued direct appeal in the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District. People v. Lash, 356 Ill. App. 3d 1146 (2005) (table). The Petitioner also fruitlessly sought review by the Supreme Court of Illinois. People v. Lash, 217 Ill. 2d 581 (2005) (table). Finally, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States, which was denied on May 1, 2006. Lash v. Illinois, 547 U.S. 1116 (2006).

Thereafter, the Petitioner pursued state post-conviction remedies in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County. The Petitioner initially filed a state post-conviction motion on November 21, 2006. That motion was denied by the state Circuit Court, and the Petitioner filed an additional motion to vacate judgment on March 26, 2007. The second motion was also denied, and the Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed the denial of each motion to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Finally, the Petitioner sought review of both post-conviction decisions in the Supreme Court of Illinois. The Supreme Court of Illinois denied both Petitions for Leave to Appeal on November 26, 2008. People v. Lash, 229 Ill. 2d 682 (2008) (table) (Case No. 106965, Petition to Vacate Judgment); People v. Lash 229 Ill. 2d 682 (2008) (table) (Case No. 106978, Post-Conviction Motion). The mandate for each case issued on December 31, 2008.

The Petitioner signed and dated his Petition for this case*fn3 on November 23, 2009,*fn4 alleging fifty-eight grounds for relief. See Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [d/e 1, attachments 1-2].

The Court conducted a preliminary review of the Petitioner's voluminous file, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, and determined that the petition appeared to be untimely. The Court ordered the Petitioner to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed. In the Order to Show Cause [d/e 6], the Court detailed why the petition appeared to be untimely, affording the Petitioner notice and the opportunity to respond. See Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 209-10 (2006). The Petitioner and the Respondent have both responded to the Order to Show Cause.

II. TIMELINESS

A. One-Year Limitation

This case is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). AEDPA provides, in part:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The ...


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.