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.

James A. Johnson v. Mike Atchison

August 8, 2012

JAMES A. JOHNSON, PETITIONER,
v.
MIKE ATCHISON, WARDEN, MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER,*FN1 RESPONDENT.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

I. Introduction

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 23) of United States Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier, issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), recommending denial of petitioner James A. Johnson's § 2254 habeas petition (Doc. 1). The R&R was sent to the parties, with a notice informing them of their right to appeal by way of filing "objections." In accordance with the notice, petitioner filed timely objections to the R&R (Doc. 26). Because petitioner filed timely objections, this Court must undertake de novo review of the objected-to portions of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); FED. R.

CIV. P. 72(b); SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS LOCAL RULE 73.1(b); Willis v. Caterpillar, Inc., 199 F.3d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 1999); Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). The Court may "accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision." Willis, 199 F.3d at 904. In making this determination, the Court must look at all the evidence contained in the record and give fresh consideration to those issues for which specific objection has been made. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of the findings of the R&R for which no objections have been made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985).

The Court liberally construes petitioner's instant pro se petition as raising eleven separate grounds for relief. Thus, the R&R addresses petitioner's following grounds:

1. The trial court's admission of unreliable identification testimony by Lamont Wooten violated rights protected by the Fifth, Sixth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments.

2. The trial court's restriction of two categories of relevant evidence violated rights protected by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments:

(a). Cross-examination of "six pack" members regarding .380 pistol

(b). Testimony linking .380 pistol to a crime in the Roosevelt Homes neighborhood

3. The trial court's admission of hearsay testimony by Brandi Stiff violated rights protected by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

4. The trial court's rejection of proposed jury instructions describing the lesser included offenses of second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter violated rights protected by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

5. The prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on each element of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and armed robbery violated rights protected by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

6. The prosecutor's deliberate exclusion of persons from the jury on grounds of race violated rights protected by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

7. The trial court's failure to admonish jurors of their responsibilities throughout the trial violated rights protected by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

8. Trial counsel's deficient performance deprived petitioner of effective assistance in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as follows:

(a). Counsel failed to call Demond Hendricks as a witness

(b). Counsel failed to call other available defense witnesses

(c). Counsel failed to allow petitioner to testify in his own defense

(d). Counsel was impaired by psychological incapacitation

(e). Counsel's representation was not zealous

9. Appellate counsel's deficient performance deprived petitioner of effective assistance in violation of the rights protected by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as follows:

(a). Counsel was impaired by psychological incapacitation

(b). Counsel failed to raise ineffective assistance of trial counsel

(c). Counsel failed to raise the issues raised during post-conviction proceedings

(d). Counsel failed to raise the issues raised during state habeas proceedings

(e). Counsel's representation was not zealous

10. The state court rejected petitioner's meritorious claim of actual innocence in violation of rights protected by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments

11. The prosecution's amendment of charges following grand jury indictment violated rights protected by the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The R&R recommends denial of petitioner's § 2254 petition. Specifically, the R&R finds that petitioner's following grounds are procedurally defaulted: 1; 2(a) and (b); 3; 4; 5; 7; 8(b),(c),(d) and (e); and 9(b),(d), and (e). Further, the R&R concludes that petitioner's grounds 10 and 11 do not state a cognizable basis for habeas relief. Finally, in reviewing the merits of grounds 6, 8(a), and 9(a) and (c), the R&R finds that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court ADOPTS the findings of the R&R.

II. Petitioner's ...


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.