Jackson v. Jones

Decision Date16 September 2022
Docket Number19-cv-00822-DWD
PartiesANTHONY T. JACKSON, Petitioner v. ALEX JONES, Warden, Menard Correctional Center, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois
MEMORANDUM & ORDER

DAVID W. DUGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed a Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc 13), and the matter is now ripe for a decision by the Court. For the reasons explained below, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly.

Background

On September 25, 2009, Petitioner was convicted by a jury in Clinton County, Illinois, of first-degree murder. (Doc. 1 pg. 1). On November 24, 2009, Petitioner was sentenced to 40 years in prison. (Doc. 1, pg. 1). Petitioner is in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections at Menard Correctional Center and has now filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) under 28 U.S.C § 2254, alleging: (1) the Illinois trial court erred by denying Petitioner's motion to suppress statements made during a custodial interrogation, where he requested but did not receive legal counsel (Doc. 1, pg. 8); (2) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel in his direct appeal, where counsel failed to challenge the Illinois trial court's grant of a motion in limine that barred the presentation of certain testimonial evidence at trial (Doc. 1, pg. 10); (3) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel, where appellate counsel failed to challenge certain witness identification testimony (Doc. 1, pg. 12); (4) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, where counsel failed to call an alibi witness to testify at trial (Doc. 1, pg. 14); and (5) The evidence did not support the judgment and conviction, where hair fragments found on the victim did not match Petitioner's hair samples (Doc. 1 pg. 16). Respondent filed a Response along with the state court record. (Docs. 13-14).

1. State of Illinois Trial Court Proceedings

Petitioner was charged with first-degree murder. (Docs. 14-1, pg. 1; 14-3, pg. 2). Petitioner was tried before a jury in Clinton County, Illinois. (Docs. 14-1, pg. 1; 14-3, pg. 2). The State presented evidence consistent with the following summary, which is derived in part from orders of the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23, when affirming the judgment and conviction on direct appeal and affirming the dismissal of Petitioner's second amended petition for postconviction relief. See People v. Jackson, 2011 IL App (5th) 100181-U (Jackson I); People v. Jackson, 2018 IL App (5th) 150090-U (Jackson II); (Docs. 14-1; 14-3). State court determinations of factual issues are presumptively correct, such that clear and convincing evidence is required to rebut the presumption. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).

The victim of the murder at issue in this case, Kevin Hamburg, sold marijuana out of his apartment in Centralia, Illinois, where he lived with his girlfriend, Amanda Hunt, and her two daughters. (Docs. 14-1, pg. 1; 14-3, pg. 2). In the summer of 2008, Petitioner purchased marijuana from Hamburg through two acquaintances, Timothy Burton and Lloyd Finley. (Doc. 14-3, pg. 2). Petitioner told one acquaintance that he would rob the supplier if he “skimped” him on marijuana. (Doc. 14-3, pg. 2). Petitioner also asked Burton how much marijuana the supplier kept on hand and complained about the amount of marijuana that he was receiving from the supplier. (Doc. 14-3, pg. 2).

On the morning of September 10, 2008, Brittany Hohman drove Petitioner to Hamburg's apartment, where Petitioner bought marijuana. (Doc. 14-3, pg. 2). Later that day, Petitioner told an acquaintance, Jared Michael Queen, that he might rob Hamburg of his marijuana and, if necessary, “shoot him in his face.” (Docs. 14-1, pg. 1; 14-3, pg. 2). That night, Hohman again drove Petitioner to Hamburg's apartment, where she thought Petitioner was going to buy more weed. (Docs. 14-1, pg. 1; 14-3, pg. 2). Petitioner's girlfriend, Erica Taylor, was also along for the ride. (Docs. 14-1, pg. 1; 14-3, pg. 2). Petitioner told Hohman to drop him off and “wait down the road.” (Doc. 14-3, pg. 2). Petitioner entered Hamburg's apartment with a .25-caliber pistol. (Doc. 14-1, pg. 1).

Once inside Hamburg's apartment, Petitioner pulled his pistol and threatened to shoot Hamburg if he did not “give it to him.” (Doc. 14-3, pg. 2). A struggled ensued between Petitioner, Hamburg, and Hunt. (Docs. 14-1, pg. 1; 14-3, pg. 2). Hunt pleaded with Petitioner “to please not do this.” (Doc. 14-3, pg. 2). Hamburg pinned Petitioner against a wall and Hunt attempted to grab the pistol, resulting in Petitioner firing a bullet through the ceiling. (Doc. 14-3, pg. 2). As Hamburg and Hunt were attempting to force Petitioner “out the door,” Petitioner fired a second gunshot that struck Hamburg in the head, resulting in Hamburg's death. (Docs. 14-1, pg. 1; 14-3, pg. 2).

Petitioner fled the scene and called Hohman to pick him up [a]bout a block down the road.” (Docs. 14-1, pg. 1; 14-3, pgs. 2-3). Petitioner was out of breath and “looked kind of shook up” when he reentered the vehicle. (Docs. 14-1, pg. 1; 14-3, pgs. 2-3). Petitioner said he fired the gun but “didn't know if he hit anybody.” (Docs. 14-1, pg. 1; 14-3, pgs. 23). Hohman dropped Petitioner and Taylor off at Taylor's mother's house. (Doc. 14-3, pgs. 2-3). Petitioner told Hohman, “keep [your] eyes and ears open.” (Doc. 14-3, pgs. 2-3).

Back at Hamburg's apartment, Hunt and her 8-year-old daughter, who was in the hallway of the apartment during the struggle, were questioned by the police. (Doc. 14-3, pg. 3). Hunt informed the police that she recognized the shooter but did not know his name. (Doc. 14-3, pg. 3). Hunt also informed the police that Hamburg had “only associated with three black guys” - “D,” “Terrell or Terreek,” and “the other one from Arkansas.” Hunt indicated that the shooter was the last person to call Hamburg's cellphone, so she identified Petitioner's cell phone number as being the shooter's cell phone number. (Doc. 14-3, pg. 3). “Terrell or Terreek” had an alibi at the time of Hamburg's murder and Hunt, after being shown a photographic lineup that included a picture of “Terrell or Terreek,” cleared him of being the shooter. (Doc. 14-3, pg. 3). When Hunt was shown a photographic lineup that included a picture of Petitioner, Hunt positively identified Petitioner as the shooter of Hamburg. (Doc. 14-3, pg. 3). Hunt also identified Petitioner as the shooter of Hamburg at trial. (Doc. 14-3, pg. 3).

Shortly after the shooting, Petitioner left Centralia via a train to Memphis, Tennessee. (Docs. 14-1, pg. 1; Doc. 14-3, pg. 3). Before doing so, Petitioner visited Queen, to whom Petitioner stated he had to “get ghost for a little while.” (Doc. 14-3, pg. 3). Petitioner asked Queen to take a bag of .25-caliber bullets, but Queen refused to do so. (Doc. 14-3, pg. 3). The next morning, Petitioner's ex-girlfriend, Pamela Hill, picked him up from the train station. (Doc. 14-3, pg. 3). Hill drove Petitioner to Arkansas. (Docs. 141, pg. 1; 14-3, pg. 3). Petitioner then called Hohman, who informed Petitioner that Hamburg was dead. (Doc. 14-3, pg. 3). Petitioner again told Hohman to keep her eyes and ears open and to let him know what was going on. (Doc. 14-3, pg. 3). The State confirmed, via phone records, that Petitioner repeatedly called Hohman before and after Hamburg's murder. (Docs. 14-1, pgs. 3-4; 14-3, pg. 4). The phone records also confirmed that Petitioner called Hamburg minutes before the shooting and Hohman minutes after the shooting. (Doc. 14-3, pg. 4). The night after the murder, Hohman gave Taylor a ride “out of town,” where Taylor “dumped” Petitioner's pistol and bullets off a bridge. (Docs. 14-1, pg. 1; 14-3, pg. 3). The police recovered clothing belonging to Petitioner, which Taylor had tried to burn, in Centralia. (Doc. 14-3, pg. 3). When in Arkansas, Petitioner convinced Hill to “start new” with him in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, where Petitioner was eventually apprehended by United States Marshals. (Docs. 14-1, pg. 1; 14-3, pg. 3).

After his arrest and extradition, Petitioner agreed to speak with investigators of the Centralia Police Department and was read his rights under Miranda v. Arizona. See 384 U.S. 436 (1966); (Docs. 14-1, pg. 1; 14-3, pg. 3). Petitioner denied knowing about the events at Hamburg's apartment and claimed he left Centralia after his “life was threatened” by a Chicago drug dealer named “June.” (Docs. 14-1, pg. 1; 14-3, pg. 3; 14-9, pgs. 3-4). The investigators were “convinced” Petitioner shot Hamburg and insisted that he tell his “side of the story.” (Docs. 14-1, pgs. 1, 3; 14-9, pg. 6). The investigators indicated that they spoke with various witnesses, including Hohman and Taylor, and knew what happened at the apartment. (Docs. 14-1, pgs. 1, 3; 14-3, pg. 3). About 12 minutes into the interview, which lasted 30 minutes total, Petitioner had the following exchange with investigators:

[Detective 1]: How did it go down?
[Petitioner]: I want a lawyer cause ya'll got me messed up for real.
[Detective 2]: Okay.
[Petitioner]: Now I'm not gonna sit up here and make myself look bad over. For one Brittany [Hohman] don't like me. I'm not gonna sit up here and compete where I want a lawyer. I didn't shoot nobody. I'm the one that's being in jeopardy. And just because I had to leave, I mean that really do look like I done something, but no, no sir, no sir. Me shoot him, no sir. No sir. No sir. You know I don't appreciate that for real because of what Brittany said.
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT