IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.)

JIMMY BOOKER #N-52835, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 174

)

WARDEN L. JACKSON, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This Court has twice addressed the pro se Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) filed by Jimmy Booker (“Booker”) to

challenge his state court conviction of second degree murder, on

which he is serving a 20-year sentence:

1. Its January 13, 2012 memorandum opinion and order

(“Opinion”) dismissed the Petition for the reasons explained

there.

2. Its brief February 2, 2012 memorandum order

confirmed that Booker’s one-page handprinted post-Opinion

submission “continues to reflect his misunderstanding of the

basic ground rules regarding such opinions” and consequently

reconfirmed the earlier dismissal.

Now Booker has submitted still another one-page handprinted

filing, this time accompanied by photocopies of papers relating

to his state court proceedings that put a different light on the

matter--one that requires the issuance of this third ruling.

It turns out that Booker’s Petition had mistakenly answered
“No” to the Pt. III ¶2 question “Have all grounds in this

Petition been presented to the highest court having

jurisdiction?” In that respect Booker has now tendered copies of

(1) the Illinois Supreme Court’s September 28, 2011 communication

stating that Booker’s petition for leave to appeal had been

denied by that court, (2) an October 6, 2011 letter from Booker’s

Assistant Appellate Defender sending him a copy of that

communication and advising him of several possible further

avenues for relief, including the filing of a Petition here in

the federal court, and (3) an earlier (May 12, 2011) letter from

the same Assistant Appellate Defender, who also sent him a copy

of the decision of the Illinois Appellate Court for the First

District that had then affirmed Booker’s conviction.

This Court has obtained and reviewed that May 9, 2011

unpublished order of the Appellate Court in its Case No.

1-09-1941. It finds that although Booker’s earlier

misunderstanding as to the nonexhaustion of state remedies

negates the Opinion’s ground for dismissal of the Petition on

that score, this still-accurate snippet from the Opinion applies

in a different way to revalidate the same result:

To turn to the Petition, Booker has made plain his

total misunderstanding of the role that federal courts

play--or more accurately do not play--in connection

with claims that a state court conviction has violated

the defendant’s rights.

2
In that regard the Appellate Court’s order begins by

identifying these as the only grounds that Booker advanced there

to challenge his conviction:

Defendant, Jimmy Booker, was convicted by a jury of

second degree murder and sentenced to 20 years’

imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) he

is entitled to a new trial because the trial court

failed to comply with the dictates of Supreme Court

Rule 431(b)(Ill. S. Ct. R. 431(b)(eff. May 1, 2007));

(2) the trial court interfered with the selection of a

fair and impartial jury; and (3) his sentence was

excessive in light of mitigating factors.

Unsurprisingly in light of Booker’s mistaken understanding of the

role played by a 28 U.S.C. §2254 petition, those are the

identical grounds that he has listed in his Petition here. And

even a brief look at those grounds confirms that their limited

scope is fatal to his effort to obtain federal habeas relief.

As for Booker’s first ground advanced both before the

Illinois Appellate Court and in the Petition, that is obviously a

matter of state law, not federal constitutional law. Moreover,

the Appellate Court order held that first asserted ground to have

been forfeited, which is clearly an independent and adequate

state ground for its rejection.

As to the second and third grounds for relief dealt with by

the Appellate Court and repeated in the Petition, they too are

purely a matter of state law. It is plain as well from the

Appellate Court’s order that no federal constitutional

authorities were relied on by Booker’s appellate counsel to

3
support his contentions of error.

In sum, this case has come to the same destination, albeit

by a different route. This Court again confirms the dismissal of

the Petition.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: February 13, 2012

4