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.

Bryant v. Hammers

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

January 22, 2018

WALTER D. BRYANT, #B24993, Petitioner,
v.
J. HAMMERS, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Herndon United States District Judge.

         Petitioner Walter Bryant is currently incarcerated in Illinois River Correctional Center. He brings this federal habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus that upsets his 1998 conviction for first-degree murder in Marion County, Illinois. (Doc. 1, p. 1). He is currently serving a 50-year sentence for the crime. Id.

         This matter is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the § 2254 Petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts. Rule 4 provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district court judge, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” The Petition (Doc. 1) does not survive screening under this standard.

         The Petition qualifies as a “second or successive” habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). As such, Petitioner was required to obtain permission from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals before filing it. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). He failed to do so. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the Petition, and it shall be DISMISSED.

         I. Background

         Following a bench trial in 1998, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree attempted murder. (Doc. 1, p. 1). He was sentenced to 50 years of incarceration for the crime. Id. The state appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence on March 21, 2000. (Doc. 1, p. 2). A Petition for Leave to Appeal (PLA) was subsequently denied by the Illinois Supreme Court. (Doc. 1, pp. 2-3).

         Petitioner filed two rounds of post-conviction petitions, the first of which was dismissed by the state trial court. (Doc. 1, p. 3). The state appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the initial post-conviction petition, and the PLA was denied by the Illinois Supreme Court on October 7, 2003. Id. The United States Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in March 2004. Id.

         In 2014, Petitioner pursued federal habeas relief in this District. See Bryant v. Gossett, No. 14-cv-01380-DRH-CJP (S.D. Ill.) (“First § 2254 Petition”). He challenged his 1998 conviction on three grounds:

1. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform Petitioner that he was subject to an extended-term sentence.
2. Petitioner's due process rights were violated because he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial.
3. Petitioner did not receive a sentencing hearing regarding the imposition of an extended-term sentence or concerning aggravating or mitigating factors.

(Doc. 1, First § 2254 Petition). A response was ordered. (Doc. 8, First § 2254 Petition). The Government sought dismissal of the First § 2254 Petition on the grounds that it was time-barred. (Doc. 16, First § 2254 Petition). This Court determined that the Petition was time-barred and that Petitioner's claim of actual innocence lacked merit. (Doc. 20, First § 2254 Petition). Accordingly, the Court dismissed the First § 2254 Petition with prejudice on June 30, 2015. Id.

         Petitioner allegedly filed a second post-conviction petition on July 11, 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 4). In it, he requested “immediate release.” Id. However, the petition was denied on September 26, 2017. Id. Petitioner states that he appealed ...


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.