United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause is before the Court on Petitioner Jerry Lee
Hendricks' amended motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (d/e 26). A hearing on the amended motion is not
required because "the motion, files, and records of the
case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no
relief." Hutchings v. United States, 618 F.3d
693, 699-700 (7th Cir. 2010). Because Petitioner is not
entitled to relief, Petitioner's amended Â§ 2255 motion is
April 18, 2012, Petitioner was charged with four counts of
sexual exploitation of a minor, one count of possession of
child pornography, and one count of committing a felony sex
offense involving a minor while required to register as a sex
offender. United States v. Hendricks, Case No.
12-cr-20025 (hereinafter, Crim.), Indictment (d/e 1).
Petitioner proceeded to trial on all counts.
trial, the jury heard testimony from Petitioner's minor
victim. The victim testified that Petitioner removed her
clothes, took sexually explicit photographs of her, and
sexually assaulted her. See Crim., Transcript (d/e
73), at 184-86. While being sexually assaulted, the victim
asked several times if she could use the bathroom; Petitioner
eventually relented. Id at 186-87. After getting
away from Petitioner, the victim went downstairs and showed
her mother what Petitioner had done. Id
jury also heard testimony about how the photographs of the
victim were obtained from Petitioner's cell phone.
See id. at 233-36. In addition, the jury was
informed that the parties had stipulated to the fact that
Petitioner's cell phone was mailed, shipped, or
transported in interstate or foreign commerce. See Id
. at 129. On July 17, 2013, the jury found Petitioner
guilty on all counts. See Crim., Verdict (d/e 43).
to Petitioner's sentencing hearing, the United States
Probation Office filed a third revised Presentence
Investigation Report (PSR). Crim., d/e 56. The PSR noted that
Petitioner faced a mandatory life sentence on each of Counts
1 through 4. IcL ¶ 132. In addition, the PSR noted that
Petitioner was objecting to several paragraphs of the PSR.
See id. at 32-35.
to the sentencing hearing, Petitioner filed a Sentencing
Memorandum. Crim., d/e 58. In the Sentencing Memorandum,
Petitioner stated that although he disagreed with findings in
the PSR regarding the conduct underlying his offenses and one
of his prior convictions, he had no formal objections to the
PSR. Id at 3-4.
sentencing hearing took place on June 26, 2014. At the
hearing, Petitioner withdrew his objections to the PSR,
leaving no outstanding objections remaining. Crim.,
Transcript (d/e 80), at 4-5; see also Amended PSR
(d/e 59), at 32-35. The Court sentenced Petitioner to life
imprisonment on each of Counts 1 through 4. Crim., Judgment
(d/e 60), at 2. The Court also imposed a consecutive sentence
of 20 years' imprisonment on Count 5 and, on Count 6,
another consecutive sentence of 10 years' imprisonment.
30, 2014, Petitioner timely appealed his sentence.
See Crim., Notice of Appeal (d/e 63). On appeal,
Petitioner argued that "life imprisonment was not
mandatory on any count of conviction" because "his
prior convictions that triggered the recidivism enhancement
were not alleged in the indictment or proven to a jury."
United States v. Hendricks, 615 Fed.App'x 383,
384 (7th Cir. 2015). On September 25, 2015, the Seventh
Circuit found that Petitioner had "waived any challenge
to his sentence" and affirmed the judgment. Id
September 2016, Petitioner filed his initial § 2255
motion. Petitioner has subsequently filed, with the
Court's leave, several amended § 2255
motions. On August 21, 2017, the Government filed
its Response to Petitioner's Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (d/e 27). Petitioner filed a reply (d/e 34) in
outset, the Court notes that it construes Petitioner's
pro se § 2255 motion liberally, as required. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). However, liberal construction of the
motions does not inure to Petitioner's benefit to the
extent that the motions are not understandable. See
Hudson v. McHugh, 148 F.3d 859, 864 (7th Cir. 1998).
Court has been able to decipher several claims set forth by
Petitioner. First, Petitioner alleges that the actions of
Jeffrey Honeycutt, a detective with the Kankakee County
Sheriff's Office, in obtaining a search warrant for
Petitioner's cell phone constitute a fraud upon the
court. See Motion (d/e 1), at 11-13, 17-18. Second,
Petitioner claims that trial counsel and appellate counsel
provided ineffective assistance in representing Petitioner.
See, e.g., Motion (d/e 11), at 19-27; Motion (d/e
11-1), at 1-9. Third, Petitioner claims error with respect to
the sentence imposed by the Court in June 2014. See,
e.g., Motion (d/e 26), at Motion (d/e 26-2), at
2-15. Petitioner is not entitled to relief on
any of his claims.
Fraud Upon the Court
alleges that Detective Honeycutt lied to a state court judge
in his affidavit for a search warrant when he stated that he
secured a cell phone that was in Petitioner's possession
when Petitioner was arrested. See Motion (d/e 1), at 11-13,
17-18. At Petitioner's trial, Detective Honeycutt
testified that he obtained Petitioner's cell phone from
Petitioner's personal property at the hospital. Crim.,
Transcript (d/e 75), at 66. The affidavit Detective Honeycutt
submitted to the state court judge to obtain a search warrant
for Petitioner's cell phone stated that the phone
"was in [Petitioner's] possession at the time he was
arrested." Motion (d/e 1), at ...