United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
RAY A. GOUGH, # R-00646, Petitioner,
DANIEL Q. SULLIVAN, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE United States District Judge
Ray Gough is incarcerated at Big Muddy River Correctional
Center as the result of a 2014 civil commitment proceeding in
Ogle County Circuit Court under the Sexually Dangerous
Persons Act (“SDPA”), 725 ILCS 205/0.01 et
seq. Based on that court's finding that Gough is a
sexually dangerous person, his confinement continues
indefinitely until he is determined to no longer be
dangerous. 725 ILCS 205/9. Gough's original civil
commitment took place in 2000, but after Gough appealed, the
matter was remanded for a new trial in March 2004. (Doc. 1,
p. 5; Doc. 13, p. 1). The retrial did not take place until
seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
on the grounds that a 10-year delay of his retrial in the
SDPA proceeding violated his constitutional right to a speedy
Petition raises the following grounds, all related to his
overarching speedy trial claim:
1. The trial judge unconstitutionally denied Gough the right
to represent himself and improperly charged to Gough the
3-year delay while the issue was litigated. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
2. The trial and appellate courts improperly held that
Gough's speedy trial right was not violated based on
their finding that most of the 10-year delay was either
caused by Gough or not attributable to the state, when the
State's delays alone were enough to violate the
Constitution. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
3. The appellate court improperly held that Gough's
obstructionist conduct relating to his unwanted
court-appointed attorney forfeited his right to represent
himself, when the trial court made no such finding. (Doc. 1,
4. The 7-month delay caused by the State's filing of an
improper motion for a fitness hearing, shortly before a 2010
trial date, was sufficient to deny Gough's speedy trial
right. (Doc. 1, p. 10).
5. Gough's speedy trial right was denied when the state
legislature and/or executive branch amended the statute
governing licensing of experts, which led the trial court to
order new evaluations and delayed the trial for 214 days.
(Doc. 1, p. 16).
argues that Gough's speedy trial claim is not cognizable
on federal habeas review and lacks merit. (Doc. 13). Gough
filed a Reply (Doc. 23), and the Court granted in part his
motion to expand the record with additional transcripts of
the trial court proceedings. (Docs. 33, 34). For the reasons
discussed below, Gough's § 2254 Petition will be
Facts and Procedural History
a jury trial in 2000, Gough was civilly committed as a
sexually dangerous person by the Ogle County Circuit Court
(Nos. 99-CF-207 and 99-CF-209). The Judgment was initially
affirmed on appeal in 2002 (Doc. 13-2, pp. 1-3), but in 2003,
the Illinois Supreme Court remanded the case to the appellate
court for reconsideration in light of new precedent. On
February 11, 2004, the appellate court concluded the first
trial was faulty because the jury was not required to find
that Gough's condition must affect his ability to control
his sexual behavior. (Doc. 13-2, pp 44-45, 48-50). A new
trial was ordered to be governed by the standards of proof
announced in People v. Masterson, 798 N.E.2d 735,
207 Ill.2d 305 (2003).
filed a speedy trial demand on March 23, 2004 and renewed it
on February 3, 2005. (Doc. 13-2, pp. 50-51, 53). His motion
to dismiss the case on speedy trial grounds filed on June 13,
2011 was denied. (Doc. 13-2, p. 58). The trial court denied
his second motion to dismiss the case for violation of his
constitutional speedy trial rights on August 29, 2014,
finding that Gough was responsible for the majority of the
delays and his defense was not prejudiced. (Doc. 13-2, pp.
60-61). Gough's retrial took place in November 2014. ...