Minute Oeder Form (997) _
United States District Court, Northern District of Dlinois Cl 9 y

Sitting Judge if Of
James B. Moran than Assigned Suge
‘CASE NUMBER 02 C 8891 DATE 3/5/2003
pst U.S.A. ex rel: Charles Jackson vs. Jonathan Walls
ITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the he party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the n:
——— ~~ of the motion-being-presented.}-- - a

Memorandum Opinion and Order

DOCKET ENTRY:
qQ) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) im Brief in support of motion due_____.
(3) o Answer brief to motion due____. Reply to answer brief due___.
(4) o Ruling/Hearing on setfor_ at
(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___—_ssetfor__— sat
(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___—setfor__——sat__.
(7) a Trial{set for/re-set for]on____at
(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to___at
(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) ClLocal Rule 41.1 OO FRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).
ao) @ [Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. For the foregoing reasons, the
petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied, Status hearing set for March 26, 2003 at 9:15am. is stricken.
(1) off [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

number of notices

MAR 87.200

date 87.

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

oY | Docketing to mail notices.
av | Mail AO 450 form. 1ynos 4 YLSIC” “A

wm
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

21:2 Hd 9- YH EU

Ot G34 4
Dateltime received int >

central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials

courtroom
WAH deputy's
initials



eatin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. )
CHARLES JACKSON, )
a ee )
Petitioner, 8 ) ee
)
Vs. ) No. 02 C 8891
) Uy
JONATHAN WALLS, ) “Ap pp
4 2,0
Respondent. ) Cn,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Petitioner Charles Jackson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. We granted petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and
respondent Jonathan Walls filed an answer to the petition. For the following reasons,
Jackson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

BACKGROUND

Following a jury trial, petitioner was convicted of attempted murder and attempted
armed robbery and sentenced to consecutive sentences of 30 years and 15 years. The Iinois
Appellate Court, First District, affirmed the conviction on August 27, 1999, Petitioner
unsuccessfully filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Illinois court. Both the Illinois
Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed denials of his petition. He then filed
this action asserting that the mandatory sentencing provisions of 730 ILCS 5/5-8-4(a) and (b)

violate his rights to due process and trial by jury in light of the United States Supreme Court’s

decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).


oie

No. 02 C 8891 Page2

DISCUSSION

Habeas relief is limited to situations in which a conviction or sentence is based on "an
error of law that is jurisdictional, constitutional, or constitutes a fundamental defect which
inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice:"" Bischel v: United States; 32 F.3d 259,
263 (7" Cir. 1994). If the court finds that any of the above errors occurred, then the prisoner's
conviction will be "vacated or set aside and the petitioner will be discharged, resentenced, or
granted a new trial." Dikeocha v. United States, 2002 WL 31006136, *1 (N.D. Ill. 2002).

The Supreme Court decided Apprendi subsequent to petitioner’s sentencing. A new
Supreme Court decision may justify a collateral attack on a sentence only if it establishes a
new rule of law made retroactive by the Supreme Court. Talbott v. Indiana, 226 F.3d 866, 868
(7" Cir. 2000) citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2)(A), 2255 § 8(2). Apprendi does not state that it
applies retroactively to cases on collateral review, therefore no petition for habeas corpus can

proceed under § 2244(b)(2)(A) or § 2255  8(2). Talbott, 226 F.3d at 869,

Petitioner’s claim falls squarely within the realm of Talbott. Unless the Supreme Court

ultimately decides that Apprendi should apply retroactively to collateral attack on sentencing,

petitioner’s claim has no merit.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

6. Men,

JAMES B. MORAN
‘ior Judge, U. S. District Court

Mase, S , 2003.