Pierre A. Montanez v. John Burle, Warden

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois denied Pierre A. Montanez’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court held that several grounds were untimely or procedurally defaulted and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. The claims principally concerned alleged Brady violations, prosecutorial misconduct, Confrontation Clause violations, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Holdings

1. Grounds 1 and 9 were untimely because they were first raised in the amended petition more than one year after the federal limitations period expired and did not relate back to the original petition.
2. Ground 9 was not timely under § 2244(d)(1)(C) because Smith v. Arizona did not announce a rule the Supreme Court had made retroactive to cases on collateral review.
3. Grounds 1, 3(b), 7, 8, and 9 were procedurally defaulted and Montanez failed to establish cause and prejudice or actual innocence to excuse the defaults.
4. Montanez was not entitled to habeas relief on the claim that the State failed to disclose that Ortiz testified with an expectation of receiving a plea bargain.
5. Grounds 3(a), 4, 5, and 6 did not warrant habeas relief because Montanez failed to establish material suppression of favorable evidence.
6. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists could not debate the timeliness, procedural-default, deference, or merits rulings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether grounds 1 and 9 of the amended habeas petition were untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), including whether they related back to the original petition or were based on a newly recognized retroactive constitutional right.
2. Whether grounds 1, 3(b), 7, 8, and 9 were procedurally defaulted.
3. Whether the alleged suppression of evidence concerning Ortiz's expected plea agreement violated Brady v. Maryland.
4. Whether the alleged failure to disclose a Chicago Police Department report, evidence of Caucasian hairs, inventory information, or discipline involving DNA analyst Amy Rehnstrom established Brady violations.
5. Whether Montanez was entitled to federal habeas relief under the deferential standard applicable to claims adjudicated by the state courts.
6. Whether a certificate of appealability should issue.

Disposition

other