Blake v. Hardy, Case No. 10-cv-238-DRH
Decision Date | 16 September 2013 |
Docket Number | Case No. 10-cv-238-DRH |
Parties | SAMUEL PAUL BLAKE, Petitioner, v. MARCUS HARDY, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois |
I. Introduction
This case is before the Court on a petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1). Respondent has filed a response to the petition (Doc. 22). Petitioner has filed a reply (Doc. 37). Based on the following, the Court DENIES and DISMISSES petitioner's habeas petition (Doc. 1).
II. Background
Petitioner is currently incarcerated in the Stateville Correctional Center where he is serving a natural life sentence for four counts of predatory criminal sexual assault and a term of ten years imprisonment for a criminal sexual assault .
Petitioner was charged in Randolph County on four counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and one count of criminal sexual assault . Petitioner was charged with sexually assaulting his stepdaughters, M.P. and P.G. It was alleged that petitioner had sexual intercourse with P.G. during the time periods of September 2000 through October 2000, November 2000 through December 2000, and January 2001 respectively (Id. at p. 2). It was also alleged that petitioner had sexual intercourse with M.P. during August 2000 through September 2000 (Id.). The criminal sexual assault count alleged that petitioner had sexual intercourse with M.P. during the period of January 31, 2001 through February 2001, after M.P. turned thirteen (Id).
At trial, Randolph County Sheriff's Office Detective Donald Krull testified that during a March 29, 2001 interview with P.G., P.G. told him that petitioner had sexual intercourse with her and that she had seen him have sexual intercourse with M.P (Doc. 22 Ex. B at p. 2). She also stated petitioner took nude photos of her and M.P., but destroyed them, and that she once had sexual intercourse with petitioner while on his mail truck route in Monroe County (Id.).
M.P. testified at trial that petitioner had sexual intercourse with her in his bed, on the couch, in the basement, and on his mail truck route. She testified that she once saw petitioner having sexual intercourse with P.G. and that petitioner took M.P.'s clothes off and threatened her (Id.). P.G. also testified about her sexual encounters with petitioner. She testified that she had sexual intercourse with Petitioner on his bed and couch (Id.). She also identified a third sexual encounterwith Petitioner which occurred on a day her mother took her brother to the doctor and to Wal-mart to get a prescription refilled (Id.).
Petitioner's wife and mother of the victims testified that she believed her daughters' allegations were false and made out of anger that petitioner made them do their homework and objected to their being around older boys. Petitioner's wife also testified that petitioner was with her on the day she took her son to the doctor (Id.). Petitioner was found guilty on all five counts and sentenced to natural life (Id. at p.3).
After petitioner's guilty verdict, he appealed his sentence to the state appellate court, arguing that 720 ILCS 5/12-14.1(b)(1.2), the provision requiring a sentence of natural life for predatory criminal sexual assault convictions involving two or more children was unconstitutional under the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution (Doc. 22 Ex. A at p. 3). The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed petitioner's sentence . Petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal (PLA) to the Illinois Supreme Court, but the supreme court denied his PLA on December 3, 2003 (Doc. 22 Exs. F & G).
On September 15, 2003, petitioner filed a post-conviction petition pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/122-1, et seq, and a petition for relief from judgment under 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (Doc. 22 Ex. H). Petitioner, by his counsel, then filed an amended post-conviction petition (Doc. 22 Ex. I). In the petition, petitioner raised the following issues:
(Doc. 22 Ex. H at pp. 11- 16; Ex. I at pp.2-3). The petition was denied by the trial court (Doc. 22 Ex. J). Petitioner appealed the trial court's denial to the state appellate court, where he was represented by the Office of the Appellate Defender (OSAD). Counsel moved to withdraw, finding no reasonable argument in support of the appeal (Doc. 22 Exs. B & K).
Petitioner responded to the motion to withdraw, arguing that his claims had merit. He specifically pointed out the following claims:
(Doc. 22 Ex. L). The appellate court granted the motion to withdraw and affirmed the trial court's judgment on the post-conviction petition (Doc. 22 Ex. B).
Petitioner then filed a petition for leave to appeal (PLA) with the Illinois Supreme Court. His petition there argued:
(Doc. 22 Ex. M). The Supreme Court denied the PLA (Doc. 22 Ex. N).
On April 1, 2010, petitioner filed the instant habeas petition. Petitioner raised the following issues in his petition, as set forth by respondent in his responsive brief:
To continue reading
Request your trial