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.

Thomas v. Calloway

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

November 12, 2019

Anthony Thomas, Petitioner,
v.
Victor Calloway, Warden of the Danville Correctional Center Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Honorable Thomas M. Durkin United States District Judge.

         An Illinois state court jury found Anthony Thomas guilty of aggravated sexual assault. He is serving a 15-year sentence at the Danville Correctional Center in Illinois, in the custody of Warden Victor Calloway. Thomas is serving this sentence consecutive to another 15-year sentence he received after pleading guilty to a separate charge of aggravated sexual assault of a second victim. Thomas, pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.[1] The Warden answered the petition seeking its dismissal. R. 7. Thomas's petition is denied and the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

         Background

         On direct appeal Thomas argued: (1) the admission of facts about his other sexual assault conviction violated 725 ILCS 5/115-7.3; (2) he was impermissibly punished for going to trial because he was offered a lower sentence prior to trial than he received after trial; and (3) his trial counsel was ineffective. See R. 8-1 at 28-29, 34, 40. The appellate court rejected claims (1) and (2) but remanded on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See R. 8-4 at 1 (¶ 1). Thomas filed a petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on claims (1) and (2), which was rejected. See R. 8-5 at 2; R. 8-6 at 1-3.

         The trial court held a hearing on the remanded ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim and denied the claim. See R. 8-10 at 1 (¶ 1). Thomas appealed, and the appellate court affirmed. Id. Thomas did not file a petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on the ineffective assistance of counsel ruling.

         Thomas also filed a post-conviction petition claiming: (1) the State suborned perjury by ignoring inconsistencies in the victim's statements prior to and at trial; (2) ineffective trial counsel for failure to preserve a perjury claim; and (3) ineffective appellate counsel for failure to raise the issue on appeal. See R. 8-11 at 7-8. The trial court dismissed the claims as frivolous and the appellate court affirmed. See R. 8-13 at 2-3 (¶¶ 4, 7). Thomas filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, which was rejected. See R. 8-14 at 1-2. Thomas's petition for leave to appeal did not include any claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See R. 8-14 a 2-11.

         Generously construed, Thomas's habeas petition includes the following claims:

Ground 1: admission of other-crimes evidence for propensity purposes violated due process, R. 1 at 5;
Ground 2: consecutive sentences violated state law, id. at 6-7;
Ground 3: the prosecutor made inflammatory statements to the jury, id. At 10;
Ground 4: ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to (a) challenge the admission of O.L.'s testimony, id. at 16, (b) argue that petitioner's statement to police was obtained in violation of Miranda, id. at 17, (c) challenge the imposition of consecutive sentences, id. at 7, and (d) exclude biased jurors, id. at 21;
Ground 5: the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses, id. At 18, 20;
Ground 6: the evidence was insufficient because two witnesses (Dr. Khatoon and nurse Reyes) testified that their examinations of the victim revealed no tearing or swelling, id. at 18;
Ground 7: the jury was biased because some jurors stated they could not be impartial and some had family members who were ...

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.