United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. Herndon, District Judge.
matter is before the Court on respondent's Motion to
Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Unexhausted
(Doc. 15) as well as petitioner's Motion for Issuance of
a Conditional Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 2).
2000, Valdez Jordan was convicted by a Madison County,
Illinois, jury of armed robbery and first-degree murder. He
was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of thirty and
thirty-five years. Doc. 15, Ex. 2, p. 4.
filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 in December 2016. (Doc. 1). He asserts the
following grounds for habeas relief:
1) Prosecutorial misconduct consisting of (a) the police
elicited incriminating statements from Jordan in violation of
his right to counsel; (b) knowing use of false testimony
before the grand jury; (c) knowing use of false testimony at
trial; and (d) denial of due process and a fair trial by the
“totality of prosecutorial misconduct.”
2) Ineffective assistance of trial counsel in that counsel
(a) failed to file a motion to suppress statements obtained
in violation of Jordan's right to counsel; (b) failed to
file a motion to quash indictment; (c) failed to file a
motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Tamala Hamilton;
(d) failed to seek a continuance of trial to locate witness
Monique Kimple; and (e) denial of effective assistance by the
“totality of counsel's omissions and errors.”
direct appeal, Jordan argued that he was denied a fair trial
by the introduction of a prior consistent statement to
bolster the testimony of a state's witness and by the
state's improper closing argument. His conviction was
affirmed in June 2002. (Rule 23 Order on Direct Appeal, Doc.
15, Ex. 2, p. 54). His petition for leave to appeal was
denied on October 2, 2002. (Ex. 2, p. 62).
April 2, 2003, Jordan filed a post conviction petition in
state court. Ex. 2, p. 64. That petition has been amended
several times and remains pending. The combined docket sheet
for Jordan's criminal case and post conviction petition
is attached to Doc. 15, Ex. 2 at pp. 1-27.
U.S.C. §2254(b)(1)(A) prohibits a federal court from
granting habeas relief to a person convicted in state court
unless the petitioner has exhausted state court remedies.
§2254(C) provides that “An applicant shall not be
deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts
of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has
the right under the law of the State to raise, by any
available procedure, the question presented.”
habeas petitioner must clear two procedural hurdles before
the Court may reach the merits of his habeas corpus petition:
exhaustion of remedies and procedural default. Rodriguez
v. Peters, 63 F.3d 546, 555 (7th Cir. 1995).
Before seeking habeas relief, a petitioner is required to
bring his claim(s) through “one complete round of the
State's established appellate review process”
because “the exhaustion doctrine is designed to give
the state courts a full and fair opportunity to resolve
federal constitutional claims before those claims are
presented to the federal courts.” O'Sullivan v.
Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845, 119 S.Ct. 1728 (1999), see
also 28 U.S.C. §2254(c). Under the Illinois two-tiered
appeals process, a petitioner must fully present his claims
not only to an intermediate appellate court, but also to the
Illinois Supreme Court, which offers discretionary review in
cases such as this one. Id. at 843-846.
Petitioner's Motion for Issuance ...