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.

Barness v. Hutchinson

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

April 12, 2017

DIAMOND LANEIL BARNES, Petitioner,
v.
JEFF HUTCHINSON, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HERNDON, District Judge.

         Petitioner, Diamond LaNeil Barnes, was convicted of first degree murder at a bench trial in Madison County, Illinois in October 2010. (Doc. 6, Attach. 1, pp. 45-46; Doc. 21 Exh. A, pp.10-11). He was sentenced to forty-five years imprisonment. Id. at p. 13.

         In July 2016, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 (Doc. 1), alleging, in short, that: his underlying conviction is not sound because Illinois law was, or is, contrary to federal law regarding the right to bear arms; and, based on his interpretations of the law, the facts presented did not support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. (Doc. 1).[1]

         This matter is now before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss the habeas petition as untimely (Doc. 20) to which petitioner responded (Doc. 26).

         Relevant Facts

         Petitioner was arrested and charged with first degree murder for the death of Marcus Anthony Shannon in May 2009. (Doc. 1, p. 16). Petitioner's case proceeded to a two-day bench trial and petitioner was convicted of first degree murder in October 2010. (Doc. 1, p. 16; Doc. 26, pp. 10-11). Petitioner represented himself at trial but had counsel at his sentencing. (Doc. 1, p. 12; Doc. 26, Exh. A, pp. 13-14). On April 8, 2011 petitioner was sentenced to serve forty-five years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. (Doc. 21, Exh. A, P. 10).

         In July 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed petitioner's conviction. (Doc. 21, Exh. B)(People v. Barnes, No. 5-11-0246 (Ill.App.Ct. 2012)). Petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal (PLA) that was denied by the Illinois Supreme Court in November 2012. (Doc. 21, Exh. C)(People v. Barnes, No. 114973 (Ill. 2012)). Petitioner did not file a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. (Doc. 1, p. 9). In May 2013, petitioner filed a pro se state habeas complaint in the Circuit Court of Madison County. (Doc. 1, p. 83). The trial court dismissed the complaint, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, and the Illinois Supreme Court denied petitioner's subsequent PLA on September 30, 2015. (Doc. 21, Exh. D, E)(People v. Barnes, No. 119175 (Ill. 2015)).

         In 2013, petitioner filed a motion to produce fingerprint and DNA testing and in 2014 he filed two mandamus complaints in the Circuit Court of Madison County. (Doc. 21, Exh. A, p. 13; Exh. F; Exh. G)(Docket Sheet, Barnes v. Hackett, No. 2014 MR 42 (Cir. Ct. Madison Cnty.)); (Docket Sheet, Barnes v. Crowder, No. 2014 MR 65 (Cir. Ct. Madison Cnty.)). The trial court denied the motion for additional testing and dismissed the mandamus complaints. Petitioner unsuccessfully attempted to pursue these matters to the Illinois Supreme Court. (Doc. 21, Exh. H; Exh I; Exh. J)(People v. Barnes, No. 119471 (Ill. 2015));(Barnes v. Hackett, No. 119198 (Ill. 2015)); (Barnes v. Crowder, No. 118988 (Ill. 2015)).

         Applicable Legal Statutes

         28 U.S.C. §2244 creates a one-year limitation period for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1), a person convicted in state court must file his federal habeas petition within one year of the latest of:

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through 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.