Opinion
No: 02 CR 572, No: 01 C 1303.
December 14, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Following a hearing, Petitioner's, Norman Stapleton's, petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied. United States v. Stapleton, No. 02 CR 572, 04 C 1303, 2004 WL 1965710 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2004). Petitioner seeks to appeal that ruling.
Seventh Circuit Rule 22(b) states: "In a habeas corpus proceeding in which detention complained of arises from process issued by a state court, or in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, the applicant cannot take an appeal unless a circuit justice or a district judge issues a certificate of appealability under 25 U.S.C. § 2253(c). If an applicant files a notice of appeal, the district judge who rendered the judgment must either issue a certificate of appealability or state why a certificate should not issue. . . ." Petitioner now seeks a certificate of appealability.
Petitioner was sentenced on July 1, 2003, after which Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Before the merits of the appeal could be considered, however, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b).
Petitioner then brought a § 2255 petition, raising a number of claims, including illegations that: (1) false testimony was presented by Eugene Brock, a co-defendant in this matter, at Petitioner's sentencing hearing; (2) Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent John Newcomb presented incomplete testimony at Petitioner's sentencing hearing; (3) the Government failed to honor a proffer agreement and instead used statements in the proffer agreement to aggravate Petitioner's sentence; and (4) the sentence was miscalculated because an incorrect loss amount was attributed to Petitioner. Petitioner also raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, contending that his attorney failed to adequately prepare for the sentencing hearing.
An evidentiary hearing was later held on Petitioner's motion. At the hearing, Petitioner conceded that his only proper challenge "boiled down to one constitutional issue, and that is the ineffective assistance of counsel." (Mot. Hr'g, June 3, 2004, at 12). As to this claim, Petitioner contended that a written statement substantiated his alibi. However, Petitioner did not present the written statement nor the author of that written statement to testify at the evidentiary hearing. In a written opinion dated August 31, 2004, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied. United States v. Stapleton, No. 02 CR 572, 04 C 1303, 2004 WL 1965710 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2004).
ANALYSIS
Petitions for writs of habeas corpus may be dismissed on procedural grounds, or a court can reach the merits of the petitioner's claims. Whether a certificate of appealability should issue after a petition was dismissed on procedural grounds has two components, and a court may address either of the components first. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 486 (2000) ( Slack). If the habeas petition is denied on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability "should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. "Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further." Slack, 529 U.S. at 485.
With regard to the claims dismissed on procedural grounds, jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the procedural ruling was correct. Petitioner failed to seek direct appeal of those claims, and Petitioner's counsel conceded those claims were not properly before the Court.
"Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is . . . The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.
With regard to Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, reasonable jurists would not find the assessment of those claims debatable. Petitioner failed to present any credible evidence concerning his ineffective assistance of counsel argument.