Opinion
No. 03 C 5046
October 8, 2003
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Patrick Earl, filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the trial court failed to tell him that he would be required to serve a period of mandatory supervised release following his prison term. Petitioner argues that had the trial court done so he would not have pled guilty to the charges against him. For the following reasons, the petition is denied.
On March 29, 1999, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Earl pled guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide and received a 10 ½-year prison sentence. He alleges that at the time of his guilty plea the trial court failed to admonish him about serving supervised release time and, therefore, violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402. Earl included this claim in his state court petition for post-conviction relief. On February 13, 2001, the court rejected his petition and the dismissal was affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, on February 28, 2003. On June 4, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Earl's petition for leave to appeal.
In order to show entitlement to federal habeas corpus relief, petitioner must show that he is being held in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the Unites States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991); Haas v. Abrahamson, 910 F.2d 384, 389 (7th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff does not allege any such violation of federal laws. Instead, he alleges only a violation of an Illinois Supreme Court rule. Even if petitioner's allegations are true, an error by an Illinois court in applying its own rules is not cognizable in habeas corpus proceedings. See Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 221 (1982); Cramer v. Fahner, 683 F.2d 1376, 1385 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1016 (1982) (stating that state court evidentiary rulings, because they are grounded in state law, can rarely serve as the basis for federal relief).
Moreover, petitioner's claim fails on the merits. We may grant habeas corpus relief only if the state court's decision is contrary to or employs an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 367 (2000). The Illinois Appellate Court's decision in this case does not meet these criteria. The court determined that the trial court substantially complied with the requirement that it disclose the minimum and maximum sentences to the defendant. Petitioner presents no argument nor do we find any reason that this determination by the state court was flawed in any way. In fact, petitioner simply attaches the brief he submitted to the appellate court, presenting no additional arguments in support of his claims.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.