Pro Se Chicago's Weblog

September 18, 2017

Complaint for mandamus & civil rights relief from incompetent judges


When judges or officials are incompetent, malicious, or plain mean and violate your civil rights there are two other means that the public usually doesn’t realize by which they can obtain relief even during the case. The judge or official must have a mandatory (non-discretionary) duty under the law or constitution to do a particular act, must have failed to do it, and must be able to do it if ordered to do so in order to use a mandamus complaint. Civil rights law is very complicated.  Both types of complaints should be handled by an attorney, but as a starting place if you are interested in such complaints then this is an example that was filed by me, a non-attorney pro se. Look up the  case law and look up cases regarding mandamus or civil rights in the circuit courts and under your states’ laws.

  1. Mandamus – this is where you ask a court to order an official (including a judge) to perform a task that is mandatory and not discretionary like set a bail when no bail was set in violation of the law – in Illinois no bail is allowed only on murder cases, cases where the sentence may be life, or cases where a due process hearing was held and the defendant is proven to be a danger to the public or himself.
  2. Civil rights complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Suppose a court refuses to allow you to put any witnesses on the stand, refuses to allow you to subpoena documents or refuses to accommodate your disabilities, even when you discussed them with the disability coordinator and followed the court procedures. Under the federal civil rights act section 1983 you can ask a different court (either state or federal) under federal law to declare the judge’s acts or orders in violation of law or the constitution (declaratory relief) and order the judge to follow the law and allow you compulsory process or force the judge to accommodate your disabilities (injunctive relief).
Advertisements

August 1, 2014

Federal Petiton proving corrupt judges, sheriff, & state’s attorney in Cook County


SIC color_edited-1

PLEASE come to court and show support for Shelton at the next court date on Jan 13, 2016, 10am, 2600 S California, Chicago IL, courtroom 506. Write letters to the U.S. Attorney, Sen. Durbin, Sen. Kirk, your senator, Rep. Lipinsky or your representative, and the press. Some addresses are at end of post. Spread the word through social media that Shelton needs public support to continue these blogs and fight unlawful attacks against her in retaliation for them and for helping so many with pro se litigation and defense.

This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus to the federal district court in Chicago. The Cook County Sheriff in retaliation for Shelton filing civil rights suits has been falsely arresting Shelton repeatedly and maliciously prosecuting her for battery to officers. Of NOTE: She is never charged with battering anyone else and has a lifelong history of non-violent pacifism.  For more information go here.  Also read Shelton’s other blogs: http://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com  http://chicagofbi.wordpress.com   http://cookcountysheriffdeputies.wordpress.com   http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com and search them for posts about Madigan in particular. They have beaten her so many times and so viciously that she now has post-traumatic-stress disorder and when aggressively approached by officers goes into a flashback where she cries, screams, tries to protect herself from imagined blows swinging her arms randomly (as she is reliving attacks) and cowers. If she is pushed, carried, or dragged, due to disabilities and severe balance problems she grabs at things to steady herself – all the while being out of touch with reality during these brief PTSD flashbacks. She has been arrested and charged with FELONY battery to an officer with a possible sentence of 3-14 years for “touching an officers ear and pulling her hair until her hand slipped off”. She has been held in jail one year on no bail and only recently released on $300,000 bail. This is unconstitutional excessive bail She has been denied notice, counsel of choice, discovery of evidence, and has been fraudulently accussed of being psychotic and unfit for trial, illegally without notice or jury trial, without any professional saying she was psychotic or unfit, sent to a secure mental health facility who after a few months said in court she was never unfit and is not psychotic and sent her back to jail. As a result of this lawlessness Shelton has now filed at Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Federal District Court asking for relief and presentment of the criminal conduct of judges, sheriff staff, state’s attorney, court clerk, and other corrupt persons to the U.S. Attorney for  prosecution. You can read it here: (download will be 24 pages) fed habeas 6-12-14 final Full Petition with evidence (download will be 400+ pages) Habeas Petition Asst. US Attorney Zachary T. Fardon United States Attorney’s Office Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division 219 S. Dearborn St., 5th Floor Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 353-5300 ______________________ FBI,Special Agent in Charge – Chicago Robert J. Holley 2111 W. Roosevelt Road Chicago, IL 60608 Phone: (312) 421-6700 Fax: (312) 829-5732/38 E-mail: Chicago@ic.fbi.gov _________________________ Senator Durbin WASHINGTON, D.C. 711 Hart Senate Bldg. Washington, DC 20510 9 am to 6 pm ET (202) 224-2152 – phone (202) 228-0400 – fax ____________________ Senator Kirk Washington, DC 524 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC, 20510 Phone: 202-224-2854 Fax: 202-228-4611 ___________________ Congressman Lipinsky Washington, D.C. Office 1717 Longworth HOB Washington, DC 20515 P (202) 225 – 5701 P (866) 822 – 5701 F (202) 225 – 1012

July 31, 2014

When opposing counsel lie to the court


You can file a Petition for adjudiction of criminal contempt against the attorney whether the case is in the local court or the appellate court. You should attach an affidavit stating that you have reviewed the transcripts or motion wherein the false statement was made. You should swear that the statement was false and how it was false You can ask the court to hold the attorney in contempt for fraud upon the court and sentence him for criminal contempt after a trial. If the court holds the attorney in contempt for fraud, then you can file with the ARDC and ask for the attorney to be disbarred. ARDC = Attorney Regulatory and Disciplinary Commission.

A petition is written just like a motion, but it is a collateral proceeding and not part of the case. It should be given a separate case number by the clerk.

Opposing counsel is an officer of the court. Attorneys have a code of conduct under IL Supreme Court Rules that prevent them from making false statements. They can be disbarred and should be.

Criminal contempt is when someone makes  false statements or commits fraud upon the court. Criminal contempt cannot be purged. As those charged with crimes have a 5th Amendment right to remain silent they can not be ordered to show cause as in a civil contempt case where someone refuses to obey an order.  Therefore you must file a Petition for Adjudication of Criminal Contempt instead of a Motion for Rule to Show Cause as you would with civil contempt. Criminal contempt is an act that

Civil  contempt is when you disobey an order and you hold the keys to the jail as you can expunge the order to jail you if you comply with the order such as pay child support or perform an act ordered by the judge. This is not an attempt to embarrass the court or bring the court into disrepute.

The following contains extensive important case law relevant to above and your cases.

CONTEMPT OF COURT (CIVIL V CRIMINAL) 

Circle Management, LLC., v. Olivier, 378 Ill.App.3d 601, 317 Ill.Dec. 555, 882 N.E.2d 129 (2007) [Ill.App. 1st Dist]

Major controlling case with amici including Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago (LAF), the Lawyer’s Committee for Better housing (LCBH), Cabrini-Green legal Aid (CGLA) and the Northwestern University School of Law Bluhm Legal Clinic (Bluhm Clinic).

         

Courts have inherent authority to punish a party for contempt. See People v. Warren, 173 Ill.2d 348, 370, 219 Ill.Dec. 533, 671 N.E.2d 700 (1996) (“The power to punish for contempt does not depend on constitutional or legislative grant”) [further citations omitted]

“Contempt of court has been defined as any act that is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct a court in the administration of justice, or that is calculated to lessen its authority or dignity.” Levaccare v. Levaccare, 376 Ill.App.3d 503, 508, 315 Ill.Dec. 280, 876 N.E.2d 280 (2007), quoting People v. Budzynski, 333 Ill.App.3d 433, 438, 266 Ill.Dec. 713, 775 N.E.2d 275 (2002).

Criminal contempt sanctions are punitive in nature and require a finding that the contemptuous conduct was willful. People v. Minor, 281 Ill.App.3d 568, 574, 217 Ill.Dec. 449, 667 N.E.2d 538 (1996); People v. Ernest, 141 Ill.2d 412, 422, 152 Ill.Dec. 544, 566 N.E.2d 231 (1990).

Civil contempt is prospective in nature, and is “designed to compel future compliance with a court order.” Emery, 374 Ill.App.3d at 977, 313 Ill.Dec. 502, 872 N.E.2d 485, quoting In re Marriage of Sharp, 369 Ill.App.3d 271, 279, 307 Ill.Dec. 885, 869 N.E.2d 539 (2006).

Although a court may enforce an order to pay money through contempt, this power is “limited to cases of willful refusal to obey the court’s order.” In re Marriage of Logston, 103 Ill.2d 266, 285, 82 Ill.Dec. 633, 469 N.E.2d 167 (1984).

“’It is not a contempt of court to fail to pay money which one neither has nor can obtain and which he has not causelessly either put out of his hands or failed to receive.’” Shapiro v. Shapiro, 113 Ill.App.2d 374, 388, 252 N.E.2d 93 (1969), quoting White v. Adolph, 305 Ill.App.76, 79, 26 N.E.2d 993 (1940)

Trial courts have inherent authority to impose sanctions against a party that fails to abide by valid court orders. Sander v. Dow Chemical Co., 166 Ill.2d 48, 67, 209 Ill.Dec. 623, 651 N.E.2d 1071 (1995); Smith v. City of Chicago, 299 Ill.App.3d 1048, 1054, 234 Ill.Dec. 108, 702 N.E.2d 274 (1998).

FRAUD – NOT JUST FALSE STATEMENT, BUT ALSO SUPPRESSION OF THE TRUTH

It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. People v. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Moore v. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).

Fraud maybe inferred from nature of acts complained of, individual and collective interest of alleged conspirators, situation, intimacy, and relation of parties at time of commission of acts, and generally all circumstances preceding and attending culmination of claimed conspiracy Illinois Rockford Corp. V. Kulp, 1968, 242 N.E. 2d 228, 41 ILL. 2d 215. “The Court has broadly defined fraud as any conduct calculated to deceive, whether it be by direct falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or silence, by word of mouth, by look, or by gesture. Fraud includes the suppression of the truth, as well as the presentation of false information. (In re Witt (1991) 145 Ill.2d 380, 583 N.E.2d 526, 531, 164 Ill. Dec. 610).” See also In re Frederick Edward Strufe, Disciplinary case no. 93 SH 100 where the Court stated that “Fraud has been broadly defined as anything calculated to deceive.” “Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”

Fraud does not always divest court of jurisdiction and cause orders to be void. They however would be voidable.

 

Misrepresentation of neglect in petition for wardship did not void jurisdiction.

 

An order is rendered void only by lack of jurisdiction, not by error or impropriety. (p. 377)

 

Only fraud that confers only colorable jurisdiction upon court renders judgment void; fraud that occurs after court’s valid

 

Fraud can render a judgment void, but not all fraud can do so. (Johnson v. Hawkins (1972), 4 Ill.App.3d 29, 32, 280 N.E.2d 291.) There is a difference between fraud that confers only colorable jurisdiction upon the court, and fraud that occurs after the court’s valid acquisition of jurisdiction; only the former type of fraud will render a judgment void. (Schwarz v. Schwarz (1963), 27 Ill.2d 140, 144-45, 188 N.E.2d 673.) The latter type of fraud, fraud that occurs after jurisdiction has been acquired, will render the court’s  order voidable, but not void for lack of jurisdiction. (Vulcan Materials Co.  v. Bee Construction, 96 Ill.2d at 165, 70 Ill.Dec. 465, 449 N.E.2d 812; In re Marriage of Noble (1989), 192 Ill.App.3d 501, 509, 139 Ill.Dec. 133, 548 N.E.2d 518; James v. Chicago Transit Authority (1976), 42 Ill.App.3d 1033, 1034-35, 1 Ill.Dec. 552, 356 N.E.2d 834; Johnson v. Hawkins, 4 Ill.App.3d at 32, 280 N.E.2d 291.) Fraudulent concealment, for example, renders a court’s orders voidable, not void. In re Application of County Treasurer (1990), 194 Ill.App.3d 721, 726, 141 Ill.Dec. 350, 551 N.E.2d 343.

 

Can file civil rights suit against lawyer when they lie to the court and harm you

In ?  Vigus v. O’Bannon, 1886 N.E. 788, 118 Ill. 334; Hazelton v. Carolus, 1907 132 Ill. App. 512; Carter v. Mueller 457 N.E. 2d 1335 Ill. App. 1 Dist. 1983, The Supreme court has held that: “The elements of a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation (sometimes referred to as “(fraud and deceit)”are: (1) False statement of material fact; (2) known or believed to be false by the party making it; (3) intent to induce the other party to act; (4) action by the other party in reliance on the truth of the statement; and (5) damage to the other party resulting from such reliance. ______________, ____ U.S. _____ (_?_)

_____? citation_______Scott, 377 Mass. 364, 386 N.E. 2d 218, 220 (1979) See Lopez-Alexander, Unreported Order No. 85-279 (Colo. May 3, 1985) (Judge removed for, inter alia, a persistent pattern of abuse of the contempt power. The Mayor of Denver accepted the findings of the Denver County Court Judicial Qualification Commission that the judge’s conduct could not be characterized as mere mistakes or errors of law and that the conduct constituted willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute). Canon Ethics where there is a pattern of disregard or indifference, which warrant discipline.

Section 1983 of U.S.C.S. contemplates the depravation of Civil Rights through the Unconstitutional Application of a Law by conspiracy or otherwise. Mansell v. Saunders (CA 5 F 1A) 372 F 573, especially if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect, where an action is for a conspiracy to interfere with Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1985 (3), or for the depravation of such rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect and plaintiff was thereby deprived of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the United States Constitution and Laws, the gist of the action maybe treated as one for the depravation of rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, Lewis v. Brautigam (CA 5 F 1a) 227 F 2d 124, 55 ALR 2d 505, John W. Strong, 185, 777-78 (4 th ed. 1992).

Properly alleged facts within an affidavit that are not contradicted by counter affidavit are taken as true, despite the existence of contrary averments in the adverse party’s pleadings. Professional Group Travel, Ltd. v. Professional Seminar Consultants Inc., 136 ILL App 3d 1084, 483 N.E. 2d 1291; Buzzard v. Bolger, 117 ILL App 3d 887, 453 N.E. 2d 1129 et al.

i.e. even if false statements, unless you have affidavits that they are false, the statement is taken as true

FRAUD BY STATE IN CRIMINAL CASE – FALSE STATEMENTS TO CRIMINAL COURT

 

Where the public policy of the State of Illinois is violated, the order is void, Martin-Tregona v. Roderick, 29 Ill.App.3d 553, 331 N.E.2d 100 (1st Dist. 1975).

“Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court. It is clear and well-settled law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. People v. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354, 192 N.E. 229 (1934)

To apprehend a person on a sham or pretextual charge is so dangerous to interest of privacy and personal security as to call into play the exclusionary rule … The officer’s subjective intent and beliefs are quite crucial … If sham arrest operating under the impression that an arrest for offense count not stand up – use exclusionary rule …arrest must have a good faith probable cause  Carroll v. United States 267 U.S. 132, 156, 69 L.Ed. 543, 45 S.Ct 280 (1925); Moss v. Cox, 311 F.Supp. 1245, 1252 (ED VA 1970)

Due Process Defense 97 ALR Fed. 273

November 9, 2008

Federal Habeas NOT Moot if Released from Custody


Release from Custody (incarceration or parole) does NOT Cause a Petition to Federal Court for Habeas (regarding conviction and not solely sentence) to become Moot as there may be Collateral Consequences that keep the Controversy “live” Maintining the Federal Court Jurisdiction

over the Matter.

            The Federal District Court has jurisdiction of petitions for writs of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 which requires the petitioner to be “in custody.” Jurisdiction is established for this purpose as long as the petitioner is in the custody of the state when the petition for writ of habeas corpus is filed. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 1559, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968) (overruling Parker v. Ellis, 362 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 909, 4 l.Ed.2d 963 (1960)).

            Article III of the Constitution allows Federal Courts to adjudicate only actually, ongoing cases or controversies. See Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, 509 F.3d 406, 420-421 (8th Cir. 2007); Potter v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc., 329 F.3d 608, 611 (8th Cir. 2003). “This case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate” and, “[w]hen an action no longer satisfies the case or controversy requirement, the action is moot and a federal court must dismiss the action.” Potter v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc.,  supra at 611 [citations and internal quotations omitted] Therefore, there must be consideration given to whether or not a controversy still exists when a prisoner after filing or when filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus is no longer in custody. The United States Supreme Court has wrestled with this issue for decades. The inquiry was narrowed to consider the possibility of providing the petitioner further redress for the claims that have been raised. If this is impossible, the case is moot. The Court in Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998) found that once a habeas petitioner is released from custody, his case becomes moot, unless he can show that a writ of habeas corpus would still provide him some genuine benefit. This line of reasoning began decades before in the United States Supreme Court.  

            In St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41, 63 S.Ct. 910, 87 L.Ed. 1199 (1943) the Court held that there were two exceptions to the mootness doctrine when the sentence of a petitioner for a write of habeas corpus expired. First is when the petitioner “could not have brought his case to this Court for review before the expiration of his sentence.” This applies when the sentence is so short that there is no realistic possibility of bringing the case to court prior to expiration of the sentence. In Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 at 52, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968), the Court noted that this was true in a six-month sentence for contempt despite the fact that the petitioner “took all steps to perfect his appeal in a prompt, diligent, and timely manner.” The Court in Sibron supra, at 53 further noted that: “As St. Pierre supra, clearly recognized, a State may not effectively deny a convict access to its appellate courts until he has been released and then argue that his case has been mooted by his failure to do what it alone prevented him from doing.”

            The second exception recognized in St. Pierre supraat 43, permits adjudication of the merits of a criminal case where “under either state or federal law further penalties or disabilities can be imposed . . . as a result of the judgment which has . . . been satisfied”.  St. Pierre supra at 43, implied that it was the burden of the petitioner to show the existence of collateral legal consequences.

            In Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211, 67 S.Ct. 224, 91 L.Ed. 196 (1946) the Court held that a criminal case had not become moot upon release of the prisoner because the petitioner, an alien, might be subject to deportation for having committed a crime of “moral turpitude”. The Court also pointed out that if the petitioner should in the future decide he wanted to become an American Citizen, he might have difficulty proving that he was of “good moral character.”

            The Court Ginsburg v. State of New York, 390 U.S. 629, 633, 99 S.Ct. 1274, 1277, 20 L.Ed.2d 195, n. 2 (1968)  held that the mere possibility that the Commissioner of Buildings of the Town of Hempstead, New York, might “in his discretion” attempt in the future to revoke a license to run a luncheonette because of a single conviction for selling relatively inoffensive “girlie” magazines to a 16-year-old boy was sufficient to preserve a criminal case from mootness.

In United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954) the Court

ruled that collateral consequences should be considered in determining mootness.

 

Although the term has been served, the results of the conviction may persits. Subsequent convictions may carry heavier penalties, civil rights may be affected. As the power to remedy an invalid sentence exists, we think, respondent is entitled to an opportunity to attempt to show that this conviction was invalid. Morgan at 512-513 supra.

 

The Court in Sibron at 55 supra, re-iterated that this inquiry was made a presumption in a

previous decision: “[I]n Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 77 S.Ct 481, 1 L.Ed.2d 393 (1957), the Court  abandoned all inquiry into the actual existence of specific collateral consequences and in effect presumed that they existed.” [emphasis added]

 

                        The Sibron Court clarified the constitutional importance of giving the petitioner his day in court on a habeas corpus petition after release from custody, in the face of any direct or collateral consequences.

 

The Court thus acknowledged the obvious fact of life that most criminal convictions do in fact entail adverse collateral legal consequences (FN See generally Note, 53 Va.L.Rev. 403 (1967).) The mere ‘possibility’ that this will be the case is enough to preserve a criminal case from ending ‘ignominiously in the limbo of mootness’ Parker v. Ellis, 362 U.S. 574, 577, 80 S.Ct 909, 911, 4 L.Ed.2d 963 (1960) (dissenting opinion). Sibron supra,at 55. [emphasis added]

 

[I]t is far better to eliminate the source of a potential legal disability than to require the citizen tol suffer the possibly unjustified consequences of the disability itself for an indefinite period of time before he can secure adjudication of the State’s right to impose it on the basis of some past action. Df. Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 64, 88 S.Ct. 1549, 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968) (FN This factor has clearly been considered relevant by the Court in the past in determining the issue of mootness. See Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211, 221-222, 67 S.Ct. 224, 229-230, 91 L.Ed. 196 (1946). Siborn supra,at 56. [emphasis added]

 

None of the concededly imperative policies behind the constitutional rule against entertaining moot controversies would be served by a dismissal in this case. There is nothing abstract, feigned, or hypothetical about Sibron’s appeal. Nor is there any suggestion that either Sibron or the State has been wanting in diligence or fervor in the litigation. Sibron supra,at 57.

 

St. Pierre v. United States, supra, must be read in light of later cases to mean that a criminal case is moot only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction. Sibron supra,at 57. [emphasis added]

 

The Court therefore concluded that analogously Sibron’s petition for writ of habeas corpus was not moot because he “has a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the satisfaction of the sentence imposed on him. Sibron supra,at 57-58. Citing Fiswick supra, at 222.

            Subsequent release of the petitioner does not oust the court of statutory jurisdiction because with a conviction there are presumed collateral consequences that persists after termination of sentence. Carafas. at 237-238 supra. [including inability to engage in certain businesses, inability to vote, inability to serve as official of labor union, inability to serve as juror, impeachment of character, enhancement of future sentence, etc. depending on laws of state]  Even in the case of a non-felony criminal contempt conviction the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that even the direct consequence of a fine constitutes consequences that persists after termination of sentence. Port v. Heard, 764 F.2d 423 (1985).

            In Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 102 S.Ct. 1322, 71 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the presumed collateral consequences doctrine so that termination of sentence did not oust statutory jurisdiction when the issue presented in the petition for habeas corpus involved the conviction and not specifically only the sentence. As the issue of the sentence no longer existed if the petitioner was released from custody (incarceration or parole), then the petition for habeas corpus became moot under the specific circumstance that the petitioner did not question the validity of his conviction, but only applied for the writ based on his sentence.

            In Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998), the Court further narrowed the presumed collateral consequences doctrine stating that the presumption of collateral consequences to conviction do not flow to parole violations in order to satisfy Article III injury-in-fact requirement for the Court to retain jurisdiction.

           The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that:

The petitioner in this case was sentenced in 1960. He has been attempting to litigate his constitutional claim ever since. His path has been long-partly because of inevitable delays in our court processes and partly because of the requirement that he exhaust state remedies. He should not be thwarted now and required to bear the consequences of assertedly unlawful conviction simply because the path has been so long [seven years] that he has served his sentence. The federal habeas corpus statute does not require this result, and Parker v. Ellis must be overruled. Carafas supra, at 240. [emphasis added]

 

            Therefore, the line of reasoning in the United States of Supreme Court in deciding whether or not a “live” controversy still exists after a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus has been released from custody, firmly established the principle that criminal convictions entail collateral consequences that keep the controversy “live” after release when the issues in the habeas petition concern the  conviction, although not when the issues pertain solely to the sentence, nor when the conviction is in regards to a parole violation. 

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: