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.

Michael D. Heilman v. Marcus Hardy

March 27, 2012

MICHAEL D. HEILMAN, PETITIONER,
v.
MARCUS HARDY, RESPONDENT.



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

Tuesday, 27 March, 2012 11:25:25 AM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

OPINION

The Petitioner, Michael D. Heilman, was charged by information in the Circuit Court of Mason County, Illinois with having a sexual relationship with two minors who babysat his children.

In late June 2006, the Petitioner was admonished that if he did not appear at his July 10, 2006 jury trial, he could be tried in absentia . The Petitioner did not appear at the jury trial and he was tried in absentia . The jury found him guilty of three counts of criminal sexual assault, and one count of indecent solicitation of a child. The court issued a warrant for the Petitioner's arrest after he was found guilty of the offenses.

On September 7, 2006, the trial court held a sentencing hearing and, again, the Petitioner was not present. The court sentenced the Petitioner in absentia to three ten-year terms of imprisonment and one five-year term of imprisonment, all to run consecutively.

The Petitioner was apprehended in Texas, and was transported to Mason County, Illinois. The Circuit Court of Mason County informed the Petitioner of his sentence on November 16, 2006.

After post-sentencing motions were resolved, the Petitioner appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth Appellate District. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Mason County in an eight-page unpublished order on October 12, 2007.

The Petitioner filed a petition for rehearing, which the Appellate Court denied on November 2, 2007. The Appellate Court's notice of November 7, 2007, stated: "The mandate of this court will issue 35 days from today unless a petition for leave to appeal is filed in the Illinois Supreme Court." There is no record of the Petitioner filing a petition for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of Illinois.

The Petitioner's pro se post-conviction petition was signed on June 20, 2008, and was received by the Circuit Clerk of Mason County on June 25, 2008. The Circuit Court of Mason County denied the petition on September 22, 2008. The Appellate Court affirmed the Circuit Court's decision on September 3, 2009.

The Petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal, which the Supreme Court of Illinois denied on January 27, 2010. He did not seek review before the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Petitioner signed the Petition on January 24, 2011, and it was received by the U.S. District Court Clerk's Office in Peoria, Illinois on February 11, 2011. Case Number 11-cv-1054 was assigned, and U.S. District Judge Joe Billy McDade presided initially, followed by U.S. District Judge James E. Shadid. On March 23, 2011, Judge Shadid transferred the case to the Springfield Division, where it was assigned Case Number 11-cv-3079.

The Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on April 26, 2011. After the Court granted numerous enlargements of time, the Petitioner filed a Response on January 17, 2012. The Respondent did not file any Reply.

The Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is allowed for the following reasons.

I.

This case is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) and the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

"Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence submitted, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, shows 'no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" Smith v. Hope School , 560 F.3d 694, 699 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986)).

In order to survive summary judgment, there must be sufficient evidence that a reasonable factfinder could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Trade Finance Partners, LLC v. AAR Corp. , 573 F.3d 401, 406-407 (7th Cir. 2009).

"[A] motion for summary judgment requires the responding party to come forward with the evidence that it has - it is the 'put up or shut up' moment in a lawsuit." Eberts v. Goderstad , 569 F.3d 757, 767 (7th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). Although inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, inferences relying on speculation ...


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.