Migute Order Form (06/97)

we

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge James B. Moran than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 5046 DATE 10/8/2003
CASE USA, ex rel. PATRICK EARL vs. DONALD N. SNYDER
TITLE
[in the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) im) Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Q Brief in support of motion due
(3) oO Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due
(4) i} Ruling/Hearing on set for at _ .
(5) Oo Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at :
(7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) a [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) oOo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OOFRCP41(a)(1) O FRCP41(a)(2).
ao) «=o [Other docket entry] Enter memorandum opinion and order. The petition for a writ of habeas
corpus is denied.
(il) ff (For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court,
No notices required. numberof notices
Notices mailed by judge's staff. ott 09 1003
Notified counsel by telephone. date docketed
wv | Docketing to mail notices,
L-| Mail AO 450 form. 48ND Lay tsig ‘on oH
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. Mya / o-
Db
courtroom Pt2 Ud B= [99 69 date mailed notice
LG deputy’s She
initials SE ]
Date/time received int °°) 14!
‘central Clerk's Office mailing deputy initials



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

EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. )
PATRICK EARL, )
Petitioner, )
vs. } No. 03 C 5046
DONALD N. SNYDER, etc., et al., DocKE rE
Respondents. } ocr o9 2003

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Petitioner Patrick Earl, filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the
trial court failed to tell him that he would be required to serve a period of mandatory
supervised release following his prison term. Petitioner argues that had the trial court done
so he would not have pled guilty to the charges against him. For the following reasons, the
petition is denied.

On March 29, 1999, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ear] pled guilty to
aggravated vehicular homicide and received a 10 4-year prison sentence. He alleges that at
the time of his guilty plea the trial court failed to admonish him about serving supervised
release time and, therefore, violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402. Earl included this claim
in his state court petition for post-conviction relief, On February 13, 2001, the court rejected
his petition and the dismissal was affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, on
February 28, 2003. On June 4, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Earl’s petition for
leave to appeal.

In order to show entitlement to federal habeas corpus relief, petitioner must show that

| ?-



No. 03 C 5046 Page 2

he is being held in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the Unites States.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991); Haas v. Abrahamson, 910 F.2d
384, 389 (7 Cir. 1990). Plaintiff does not allege any such violation of federal laws. Instead,
he alleges only a violation of an Illinois Supreme Court rule. Even if petitioner’s allegations
are true, an error by an Illinois court in applying its own rules is not cognizable in habeas
corpus proceedings. See Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 221 (1982); Cramer y. Fahner, 683
F.2d 1376, 1385 (7" Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1016 (1982) (stating that state court evidentiary
rulings, because they are grounded in state law, can rarely serve as the basis for federal relief).

Moreover, petitioner’s claim fails on the merits. We may grant habeas corpus relief
only if the state court’s decision is contrary to or employs an unreasonable application of
Supreme Court precedent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 367
(2000). The Illinois Appellate Court’s decision in this case does not meet these criteria. The
court determined that the trial court substantially complied with the requirement that it
disclose the minimum and maximum sentences to the defendant. Petitioner presents no
argument nor do we find any reason that this determination by the state court was flawed in
any way. In fact, petitioner simply attaches the brief he submitted to the appellate court,
presenting no additional arguments in support of his claims.

CONCLUSION

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

JAMES B. MORAN
Setiior Judge, U. S. District Court

OF. &_, 2003.