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.

Jordan v. Lamb

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

May 23, 2017

VALDEZ JORDAN, Petitioner,
v.
NICHOLAS LAMB, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          David R. Herndon, District Judge.

         This 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).

         Relevant Facts

         In 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.[1]

         Jordan 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.”

         On 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).

         On 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.

         Applicable Law

         28 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.”

         A 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.

         Analysis

         1. Petitioner's Motion for Issuance ...


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.