Burgess v. Monti
| Decision Date | 02 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20 C 4216 |
| Parties | Herbert Burgess (M35077), Petitioner, v. Daniel Monti, Day-to-Day Warden, Centralia Correctional Center, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Petitioner Herbert Burgess, a prisoner at the Centralia Correctional Center0F[1], brings this pro se habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his 2013 convictions for aggravated criminal sexual assault and unlawful restraint in the Circuit Court of Cook County. (Dkt 1.) For the reasons below, this Court denies Petitioner's § 2254 petition and declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
BACKGROUND[2]
Following a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, and unlawful restraint of 15-year-old, J.V. People v Burgess, 2015 IL App (1st) 130657, ¶¶ 1, 5. The evidence at trial established that in the summer of 2011, Petitioner, J.V., and J.V.'s mother worked at the same company. Id. at ¶ 5, 28. Petitioner had known J.V.'s father for many years, and J.V., his father, and Petitioner had planned to have a barbecue on August 8, 2011, after Petitioner and J.V. finished working. Id. at ¶¶ 28, 31.
After work, Petitioner drove J.V. to his apartment to pick up some groceries for the barbecue. Id. at ¶ 31. While inside, Petitioner told J.V. he had purchased a black jockstrap and a white jockstrap for him and told J.V. to try them on. Id. J.V. refused and tried to leave the apartment, but Petitioner slammed the door (causing it to crack) and locked it to prevent J.V. from leaving. Id. at ¶¶ 31, 34. Petitioner forced J.V. into the bathroom and demanded that J.V. try on the jockstrap in front of him. Id. at ¶ 31. He then pushed J.V. into the bedroom, sexually assaulted him, and ejaculated onto the victim's shirt. Id. A few days later, Petitioner allegedly sexually assaulted J.V. again at their workplace, which alleged assault became the subject of a separate criminal case in Lake County. Id. at ¶ 5.
Petitioner maintained that he was being framed by J.V.'s father to whom Petitioner allegedly paid $20,000 for a purported business venture. Id. at ¶ 21. He claimed the father coerced his son into bringing false claims against Petitioner so that he could keep Petitioner's money. Id.
Before trial, defense counsel made an offer of proof related to Petitioner's theory that he was being framed. Id. at ¶ 15. According to Petitioner's counsel, J.V.'s uncle allegedly overheard J.V. tell his father that he did not want to lie anymore. Id. Defense counsel stated that he wanted to be able to ask the victim if he made this statement to his father. Id. The trial court ruled that defense counsel could ask J.V. if he made such a statement to his uncle. Id. If he denied it, the uncle could testify as to what J.V. said to him. Id.
Additionally, defense counsel advised the trial court that he wished to introduce during opening statement and during cross-examination of J.V. that a monetary demand was made by J.V.'s parents to Petitioner's employer in connection with the workplace-sexual-assault case that was, at the time, pending against Petitioner in Lake County. Id. at ¶ 16. Counsel argued that this evidence should be permitted, as the trial court had previously granted the State's motion to introduce evidence of the Lake County criminal case as proof of other crimes. Id. The trial court ruled that it would reconsider introduction of such evidence once defense counsel briefed the court with case law that supported introduction of a monetary demand made in an unrelated case. Id.
After opening statements, defense counsel presented several cases to the court in support of his monetary-demand argument, as well as a demand letter from a law firm directed to Petitioner's employer stating J.V.'s parents had retained the firm for an impending lawsuit. Id. at ¶ 23. Defense counsel also produced a letter from the same firm stating that it had been retained to represent J.V. but did not indicate who had retained the firm. Id. Because defense counsel had repeatedly represented to the jury during opening statements that the only evidence of the sexual assault would come through the father who allegedly coerced his son into making these claims, the trial court did not “believe based on the records [counsel] made, based on the documents ... tendered, based on what [the court had] been told” that it would be a proper area of crossexamination “of a 15 year old victim of a sexual assault that his family on his behalf filed some sort of action against the company for a sexual assault that is pending in Lake County.” (Dkt. 1715, p. 567.) The trial court ruled that Petitioner would not be allowed to cross-examine J.V. on the monetary demand but advised it would readdress the issue if warranted by the father's testimony, or if the issue subsequently became ripened as to J.V. Id. at 567-68.
The State called J.V. as its first witness. Burgess 2015 IL App (1st) 130657, ¶ 27. J.V. testified that he started working with Petitioner in early July, one month before the sexual assault occurred at Petitioner's apartment. Id. at ¶ 28. He explained that during the workday, Petitioner would check on him and M.M., another minor who had a summer job with the company, six to seven times per day. Id. During these “check-ups,” Petitioner would buy J.V. Gatorades, put his arm around J.V.'s shoulders, and slap J.V.'s behind. Id. The victim explained that Petitioner called J.V. and M.M. “his boys,” and would buy lunch for them and have them eat lunch in his office. Id. He also testified that a few weeks after starting the job, Petitioner took him and M.M. to the gym. Id. at ¶ 29. J.V. stated that while they were changing in the locker room after their workout, Petitioner pulled back the shower curtain where J.V. was showering and asked him if he needed any soap. Id. Later, when J.V. was changing, Petitioner asked J.V. how his “python” was doing and told J.V. that Petitioner had looked at J.V.'s “python” while J.V. was in the shower. Id.
Following the gym incident, the victim explained that Petitioner's “check-ups” at work increased to 10 to 12 times per day. Id. at ¶ 30. Petitioner also began driving J.V. to and from work. Id. During these trips, J.V. described how Petitioner would touch his thigh and, on one occasion, touched the tip of his penis. Id. One day, on the way home from work, Petitioner stopped and bought J.V. a PlayStation 3 with six video games. Id.
On the day of the sexual assault, J.V. explained that he tried to leave Petitioner's apartment after Petitioner told him to try on one of the jockstraps that he had purchased for him. Id. at ¶ 31. J.V. described how Petitioner slammed the door to prevent J.V. from leaving, which made a sound like the door was breaking. Id. J.V. testified that Petitioner first forced him into the bathroom where J.V. took off his pants and underwear to put on the jockstrap, and that Petitioner then forced him into the bedroom where Petitioner fondled his buttocks. Id. He described how Petitioner pushed J.V. facedown onto the bed and that J.V. felt a cold liquid on his buttocks. Id. The victim testified that Petitioner then held J.V. down while Petitioner used his penis to anally penetrate J.V. Id. J.V. explained that he felt pain and “something wet” on the back of his shirt. Id. After J.V. was assaulted, he ran to the bathroom, closed the door, and dressed, leaving the jockstrap on the bathroom floor. Id. J.V. left the bathroom crying. Id. J.V. testified that Petitioner told J.V. that if J.V. ever said anything J.V.'s mother would lose her job and J.V. would be living on the street. Id.
Petitioner then drove J.V. to his father's house. Id. J.V. ran upstairs without saying anything to his father about the assault.2F[3] Id. The victim testified that he took an hour-long shower and, upon leaving the shower, noticed his T-shirt had a yellow stain on it. Id. J.V. explained that he had recently learned about DNA in school and believed the stain on the shirt was Petitioner's semen. Id. Afraid no one would believe him about the assault, he put the T-shirt in a plastic bag and kept it in his closet. Id.
J.V. testified that, a few days later, Petitioner sexually assaulted him again while locking up their workplace for the night. Id. at ¶ 32. J.V. testified that Petitioner used one hand to hold J.V.'s arms behind his back and used his other hand to pull down J.V.'s pants. Id. J.V. described how Petitioner pulled on J.V.'s penis and pubic hairs, and inserted his fingers into J.V.'s buttocks. Id. Petitioner again told J.V. that if J.V. told anyone, J.V.'s mother would lose her job. Id.
J.V. explained that he eventually told M.M. about the sexual assault. Id. at ¶ 33. On that day, he received a text message from Petitioner that read: “If I find out you said something, you'll be living on the street.” Id. J.V. was let go from his job the next day. Id.
Once J.V.'s father learned of the sexual assault, he drove his son to the police station to speak with detectives. Id. at ¶ 34. The detectives took a picture of J.V.'s phone showing the text message from Petitioner. Id. J.V. was then brought to the hospital to be examined. Id. After the hospital, a police officer met with J.V. at his father's house, where J.V. gave the detective the plastic bag with the stained T-shirt. Id.
J.V further testified that he lived with his grandmother for a period of time following the incident. (Dkt. 17-15, p. 642-43.) He explained that his uncle also used to live with his grandmother, but they never lived at...
To continue reading
Request your trial