Minyte Ordge Fem (06/97)

ls

United States District Court, Northern District of Iinois

Thame dt Assigned fudge Elaine E. Bucklo Sitting Judge if Other
or Magiytrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 2709 DATE 2/2/2004 |
CASE Ilood vs. McAdory
TITLE
Ln the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g... plaintiff. defendant, 3ed party plaintif" und (b) stute briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion heing presented,}
DOCKET ENTRY:
[ . . . «ang at
(1) aq Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
Q) a Brief in support of motion due _
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due_ ___. Reply to answer brief due__
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for at _
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to} [set for/re-set for] on ____sset for at _
(6) O Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on____set for at _
(7) a Vrial|sct for/re-set tor] on at _—
(8) oOo {Bench/Jury trial] [Tearing] held/continued to _ at,
(9) fa This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}
OOFRCP4(m) OO Local Rule 41.1 OO FRCP41(a)\1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).
do) «ff [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the petitioner’s petition for
a writ of habeas corpus. Any pending motion in this case is terminated as moot.
(ii) [For further detaif see order attached to the original minute order-|
No notices required, advised in open court,
Na notices required. smb of tees
a | Notices mailed by judge's staft.
Notified counsel by telephone. F
Docketing to muil notices. .
Mail AQ 450 form: ~
Copy tu judge/magistrate judge,
courtroom
ms deputy’s a
initials -
Daiddtime received in
central Clerk's Office. railing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DOCKETED
EASTERN DIVISION .
FEB 03 2004

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. )
TYRONE HOOD,

Petitioner,

No. 03 C 2709

Vv.
EUGENE MCADORY,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On May 6, 1996, Tyrone Hood was convicted in the Circuit Court

of Cook County of first degree murder and armed robbery. He was
sentenced to serve consecutive prison terms of 50 years for the
murder conviction and 25 years for the armed robbery conviction.
On April 22, 2003, Mr. Hood filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, presenting six issues. I held that one issue was
procedurally defaulted and that four others did not present a basis
for relief. 1 ordered the parties to produce documents relating to
Mr. Hood’s final issue, and now address that issue.

Mr. Hood argues that his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
Amendment rights were violated when consecutive sentences were
imposed in violation of the rule announced in Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Respondent originally argued that
this issue was procedurally defaulted. However, the issue was

presented to the Illinois Supreme Court and thus was preserved for

evaluation on the merits. See, e.g., O’Sulilivan v. Boerckel, 526

OO


U.S, 838, 841-42 (1999); White v. Godinez, 192 F.3d 607 (TEC

1999).

Mr. Hood argues that the consecutive nature of his sentences
violates the rule established in Apprendi, which holds that the
jury must “determine all facts (other than a prior conviction) that
would raise a sentence above its statutory maximum.” United States
v. Noble, 299 F.3d 907, 909 (7 Gir. 2002). So long as none of the
individual sentences exceed the statutory maximum, the imposition
of consecutive sentences does not implicate Apprendi. Id. The
Illinois Supreme Court has Specifically held that “Apprendi
concerns are not implicated by consecutive sentencing,” People v.
Wagener, 196 Ill. 2d 269, 286 (2001), stating that settled Illinois
law stated that “sentences which run consecutively to each other
are not transmuted thereby into a single sentence.” Id, Further,
Seventh Circuit law holds that the rule announced in Apprendi is
not retroactive on collateral review. Curtis v. United States, 294
F.3d 841, 842 (7 Cir. 2002), The rule, announced in 2000, cannot
therefore apply to Mr. Hood's 1996 conviction and sentencing. Mr.
Hood’s claim fails on the merits and his petition for a writ of
habeas corpus is denied.

ENTER ORDER:

wv &

, Ys c
we gt, Se Rp leat part

Elaine E, Bucklo
United States District Judge
Dated: February 2, 2004