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.

Reeves v. Lashbrook

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

May 17, 2017

MICHAEL RAY REEVES, Petitioner,
v.
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM and ORDER

          Judge Herndon United State District Judge

         In 2007, a jury in Massac County, Illinois, convicted petitioner Michael Ray Reeves of three counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault and one count of aggravated kidnapping. He was sentenced to a total of fifty-two years imprisonment. See, People v. Reeves, Rule 23 Order on Second Direct Appeal, Doc. 8, Ex. 1, p. 27.[1]

         Reeves filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. (Doc. 8). He alleges five grounds related to ineffective assistance of counsel and the denial of a fair trial.

         This matter is now before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss Habeas Corpus Petition. (Doc. 11). Respondent argues that the petition must be dismissed because it is a successive petition and Reeves has not obtained permission for leave to file under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3). Petitioner responded to the motion at Doc. 16.

         Relevant Facts and Procedural History

         Petitioner filed two direct appeals and several state court postconviction proceedings. In the posture of this case, it is not necessary to delineate the claims raised in his state court proceedings. It suffices to note that petitioner's direct appeal and all postconviction proceedings were unsuccessful and that he remains in custody pursuant to the original judgment.

         Reeves filed his first §2254 petition challenging his Massac County convictions in this district in 2010. This Court dismissed the petition without prejudice because state remedies had not been exhausted. Reeves v. Rednour, Case No. 10-cv-869-DRH-DGW, Doc. 26.

         Reeves filed his second §2254 petition challenging his Massac County convictions in this district in 2012. That petition set forth twelve grounds for relief, including ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of a fair trial. At the time he filed that habeas petition, his appeal from the dismissal of his postconviction petition was pending. Reeves admitted in the petition that he was still pursuing state remedies as to at least eleven of his grounds. Reeves v. Atchison, Case No. 12-cv-630-DRH, Doc. 1. On preliminary review, this Court determined that the petition was “mixed” and dismissed all but one of the grounds without prejudice because state remedies had not been exhausted. The petition was allowed to proceed on one ground, denial of petitioner's right to a speedy trial. Case No. 12-cv-630-DRH, Doc. 4. The speedy trial claim was denied on the merits in January 2014. Case No. 12-cv-630-DRH, Doc. 20. Reeves appealed. The Seventh Circuit denied a certificate of appealability in May 2014. Case No. 12-cv-630-DRH, Doc. 38.

         Applicable Legal Standards

         A person convicted in state court is generally limited to filing only one petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court. 28 U.S.C. §2244(a).

         28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(1) provides that “A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.” However, a second or successive petition may be filed asserting certain types of claims that have not been previously presented:

A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless--
(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or
(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of ...

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.