~

No. 03 C 2012 Page3

to review the state court judgments and we do not have jurisdiction to make the review at this
time. Moreover, there is no chance that any violations resulted in the conviction of an innocent
person, as petitioner does not deny that he actually committed the crime. He disputes only the
severity of the punishment.

CONCLUSION

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

JAMES B. MORAN

Senior Judge, U, S. District Court
\ 10, 2003.


a “A

‘Minute Order Form (06/97)

(

Q

“Sv United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Ni f Assigned Judy Sitting Judge if Other
vor Magistrate Judge James B. Moran than Asigned Sudge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 2012 DATE 6/10/2003
CASE U.S.A. ex rel: Fred Ward vs. Blair Leibach
TITLE

[ln the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented.)

ah

petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

| (For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

MOTION:
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
Q) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
Q2 oO Brief in support of motion due
(3) 0 Answer brief to motion due___._ Reply to answer brief due
(4) o Ruling/Hearingon_ set for at
(5) im Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___——s set for at
(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) Oo (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto_— at
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) Cl Local Rule 41.1 OOFRCP41{a)(1) [1 FRCP41(a)(2).
(10) | [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. For the foregoing reasons,

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. j
number of notices

Notices mailed by judge's staff. yn 1 0 00

Notified counsel by telephone. date docketed

Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. 1yNOI LoLSsia ‘sn
M319

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

focketing deputy initials

24:8 WY OI Nir eu date mule novie
courtroom
WAH deputy’:
inials ot az-a3y
Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office muting deputy initials



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

EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel )
FRED WARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) No. 03 C 2012
) nN
BLAIR LEIBACH, ) ch fs
) v Ne yt
Respondent. ) ys

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his constitutional
rights were violated by his conviction and sentencing. Respondent argues that all of
petitioner’s claims have been procedurally defaulted. For the following reasons, the petition
is denied.

Following a bench trial, petitioner was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm
and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. He was sentenced to prison terms of 18 years and
5 years respectively, set to run concurrently. He appealed his sentence, contending that it was
excessive based on his age and the facts of the case. On April 10, 2000, the Illinois Appellate
Court, First District, affirmed the sentence and petitioner never filed a petition for leave to
appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Petitioner subsequently filed a post-conviction petition which was dismissed on January
5, 2000, by the trial court. On August 23, 2002, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the
dismissal. Petitioner then filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court,

arguing that his conviction and sentencing under Public Act 83-942 violated the single-subject

| 3



~

No. 03 C 2012 Page 2

rule of the Illinois constitution. On September 23, 2002, this petition was denied.

On March 17, 2003, petitioner filed the instant petition arguing that he was arrested
and convicted without probable cause; his rights were violated when he was arrested and
convicted twice based on the same set of facts; he was convicted due to false testimony; and he
was denied effective assistance of counsel.

Federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to review independent state court
determinations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729 (1991). Before we may review a
claim presented in a habeas corpus petition, the constitutional claim must be “fairly presented
to a state court, both the operative facts and the ‘controlling legal principles’ must be
submitted to that court.” Verdin v. O’Leary, 972 F.2d 1467, 1474 (7 Cir. 1992) quoting
Picard y. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 277 (1971). Such a procedural default, absent a showing of
good cause and actual prejudice, bars review of the state court judgment by a federal court.
Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 161-66 (1996). The petitioner can get around this bar only
if he demonstrates that failure to consider his claim would result in a “fundamental
miscarriage of justice.” Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750. Such a miscarriage of justice occurs when
“a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually
innocent.” Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995) quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478,
496 (1986).

Petitioner did not present his claims to the state courts to allow proper review. The
only claim that petitioner appealed to the Iinois Supreme Court was his claim that his
conviction violated the single-subject rule of the Illinois constitution, a claim that he does not

make in the instant petition. Illinois courts have therefore not been afforded an opportunity