United States ex rel. Coleman v. Chandler
| Decision Date | 16 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 10 C 50288.,10 C 50288. |
| Citation | 843 F.Supp.2d 880 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. Randall COLEMAN, Petitioner, v. Nedra CHANDLER, Warden, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Randall D. Coleman, Dixon, IL, pro se.
Katherine D. Saunders, Chief of Criminal Appeals, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Chicago, IL, for Respondent.
Illinois prisoner Randall Coleman is serving concurrent twenty-two year sentences for the unlawful delivery of a controlled substance. Presently before the Court is Coleman's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Section 2254”), which alleges that various constitutional and state law violations occurred in his state court proceedings. (R. 8, Pet.) For the reasons stated below, Coleman's petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
Coleman was arrested during a joint federal-state narcotics investigation. (R. 14, State Ct. R., Ex. A, People v. Coleman, 227 Ill.2d 426, 317 Ill.Dec. 869, 882 N.E.2d 1025, 1026 (2008) (“Coleman II ”).) He was subsequently charged with two counts of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance. ( Id.) Prior to trial, Coleman filed a motion to suppress audio recordings of conversations between himself and a confidential informant, Eugene Sanders, that had been obtained during the investigation leading to his arrest. ( Id.) In the motion, Coleman argued that the recordings were obtained in violation of the Illinois eavesdropping statute, 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/14–1 et seq., and should be suppressed under the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/108A–9. ( Id.) He acknowledged that the recordings were obtained lawfully under federal law, and that recordings made during a joint federal-state investigation are admissible under Illinois case law unless there is evidence of collusion between federal and state agents to avoid the requirements of the eavesdropping statute. ( Id.) Coleman argued that such collusion existed in his case. ( Id.) The trial court denied Coleman's motion, and the recordings and transcripts of the recordings were introduced at trial. ( Id.) The trial court also denied Coleman's motion in limine requesting the exclusion of statements he made to a police officer following his arrest. (R. 14, State Ct. R., Ex. E, People v. Coleman, No. 2–05–0482, at A6, 371 Ill.App.3d 1212, 344 Ill.Dec. 474, 936 N.E.2d 1231 (Ill.App.Ct.2d Dist.2007) (unpublished) (“Coleman I ”).)
At trial, the State presented the testimony of two law enforcement officials involved in the investigation and arrest of Coleman, the confidential informant, and a forensic scientist. The relevant testimony and evidence at trial established that Coleman's arrest arose out of an investigation by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”), the Addison police department, the Wheaton police department, and the DuPage County sheriff's office. ( Coleman II, 317 Ill.Dec. 869, 882 N.E.2d at 1026.) The investigation began in 2001 around the “open air drug market” at the Bradford Court apartments in Addison, Illinois, and eventually targeted mid-level drug dealers in other municipalities. ( Id., 317 Ill.Dec. 869, 882 N.E.2d at 1027.)
Detective Dan Raysby of the DuPage County sheriff's office narcotics unit testified first. Raysby testified that he and ATF Agent Tom Murphy met with Sanders, a dealer and friend of another informant in the investigation, in July 2003. ( Id.) Sanders agreed to participate in a controlled purchase of narcotics from his supplier, Coleman, and Agent Murphy obtained authorization for Sanders to wear a recording device. ( Id.)
The first recordings and controlled purchase occurred on August 4, 2003. Raysby testified that he met with Sanders at his apartment that day, and recorded three conversations that Sanders had with Coleman on the telephone. ( Id.) Later that afternoon, Raysby searched Sanders, equipped him with a recording device, and gave him $200 to purchase drugs from Coleman. ( Id.) Raysby then watched as Coleman arrived in a vehicle in the parking lot of Sanders' apartment building, where Sanders was waiting. ( Id.) Sanders and Coleman walked to an alley behind the building, and soon returned to the parking lot. ( Id.) After Coleman left, Sanders gave Raysby a plastic bag containing one-quarter of an ounce of crack cocaine. ( Id.) He no longer had the money that Raysby had given him. ( Id.) Raysby testified that he maintained surveillance through this entire transaction. ( Id.)
The second set of recordings and the second controlled purchase occurred a few days later, on August 7, 2003. That day, Raysby again met with Sanders at his apartment, and recorded four conversations Sanders had with Coleman on the telephone. ( Id.) At 3:30 p.m., Raysby searched Sanders, equipped him with a recording device, and gave him $600 to purchase drugs from Coleman. ( Id.) Raysby watched, and videotaped, as Coleman drove into the parking lot, exited his vehicle, walked to the alley where Sanders was waiting, and handed him a plastic bag. ( Id.) After Coleman left the parking lot, Sanders gave Raysby a plastic bag containing three-quarters of an ounce of crack cocaine. ( Id.) The videotape from August 7th was shown to the jury. ( Id.) According to Raysby's testimony, Agent Murphy was present on both August 4 and 7, 2003. ( Id.)
Sanders was the second witness, and his testimony largely reiterated the events recounted in Raysby's testimony. ( Id., 317 Ill.Dec. 869, 882 N.E.2d at 1027–28.) He also testified regarding his three prior felony convictions, his cooperation agreement with Raysby and the ATF, and his relationship with Coleman. ( Id.) Sanders was serving a prison sentence at the time of his testimony. ( Id., 317 Ill.Dec. 869, 882 N.E.2d at 1028)
The State next presented the testimony of Claire Donaghey, a forensic scientist for the DuPage County sheriff's office. ( Id.) She testified that the bag obtained on August 4th contained 6.68 grams of cocaine, and the bag from August 7th contained 19.55 grams of cocaine. ( Id.)
William Cooley, a Wheaton police officer, was the final witness for the State. ( Id.) He testified that Coleman was arrested on August 20, 2003. ( Id.) Cooley spoke with Coleman in a squad car after his arrest, and Coleman surmised that someone had set him up because he had “never sold to an undercover officer.” (Coleman I, at A5.) When Cooley asked Coleman if he worked, Coleman responded that “selling drugs is all he knows, and all he is good at.” ( Coleman II, 317 Ill.Dec. 869, 882 N.E.2d at 1028.) Coleman also told Cooley that he purchased his cocaine from Robert Ptak, who obtained his cocaine from Chicago. (Coleman I, at A5.)
Following Cooley's testimony, the State rested. Coleman presented Sanders' “source of information” agreement into evidence and also rested. ( Coleman II, 317 Ill.Dec. 869, 882 N.E.2d at 1028.) The jury convicted Coleman on both counts. ( Id.) The trial court denied a post-trial motion filed by Coleman in which he argued that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress the audio recordings. ( Id.)
On March 15, 2005, Coleman's sentencing hearing was held. (Coleman I, at A6.) At the hearing, Coleman's half-brother, Clifton Hall, testified that Coleman had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. ( Id.) Hall stated that when Coleman is on his medication, he is a good, loving person, but that when he is off his medication, he is withdrawn and not his normal self. ( Id.) Coleman's mother, Eularia Coleman, testified that Coleman was more moody and a little withdrawn when he was not on his medication. ( Id.) The trial court sentenced Coleman to two concurrent 22–year terms of imprisonment. ( Id.) On May 16, 2005, the trial court denied Coleman's motion to reconsider his sentence. ( Id.)
Coleman appealed his conviction and sentence to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second Judicial District (“state appellate court”). On appeal, Coleman argued that: (1) the trial court erred in admitting Coleman's statements that were recorded in violation of the Illinois eavesdropping statute; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to exclude Coleman's statements that were meant to serve as a plea negotiation with the State; (3) the trial court erred when it denied Coleman's motion for a new trial because the prosecutor's remarks during closing arguments caused Coleman substantial prejudice and unduly influenced the verdict; and (4) the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Coleman to 22 years because it failed to take into account Coleman's bipolar disorder as a mitigating factor. (R. 14, State Ct. R., Ex. B., Pet'r Br., No. 2–05–0482;Coleman I, at A6.) The state appellate court considered, and ultimately rejected, each of Coleman's arguments and affirmed both his conviction and sentence on February 23, 2007. ( Coleman I, at A6–A21.)
The Illinois Supreme Court granted Coleman's subsequent petition for leave to appeal (“PLA”). The single argument raised by Coleman on this appeal related to the Illinois eavesdropping statute issue. (PLA from Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., No. 2–05–0482, of Randall Coleman, 2007 WL 5255221 (Mar. 28, 2007); R. 14, State Ct. R., Ex. F, Pet'r Br., No. 104386.) On February 7, 2008, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment. ( Coleman II, 317 Ill.Dec. 869, 882 N.E.2d at 1032.) Coleman did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. (R. 8, Pet. at 2.)
On April 14, 2008, Coleman filed a pro se petition for state post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court of DuPage County. (R. 14, State Ct. R., Ex. I, State Post-conviction Pet.) In his petition, Coleman argued that: (1) he was denied his right to compulsory process to compel the testimony of the federal agent involved in procuring the recordings admitted at trial; (2) the arrest warrant was based on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Radcliff v. Anglin, Case No. 13 C 5244
... ... 13 C 5244UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ... denied Radcliff's PLA and on February 23, 2009, the United States Supreme Court denied Radcliff's petition for a writ ... 518, 536, 126 S.Ct. 2064, 165 L.Ed.2d 1 (2006); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d ... See Eichwedel v. Chandler, 696 F.3d 660, 669 (7th Cir. 2012); Woods v. Schwartz, 589 ... ...