Gutierrez v. Barwick, 1:14-cv-02799

Armando Gutierrez was convicted in Illinois state court for first-degree murder and attempted murder, following a fatal shooting incident involving Jorge and Nester Castaneda.
Gutierrez claimed self-defense at trial but was found guilty and sentenced to consecutive 40-year (murder) and 20-year (attempted murder) terms.
He unsuccessfully pursued direct appeals and a series of state postconviction petitions raising numerous claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel and constitutional violations regarding his sentencing and trial.
Gutierrez’s habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in federal court challenged his conviction on several grounds, including ineffective assistance, improper jury instructions, coerced confessions, and sentencing errors.
The court analyzed the procedural default of most claims and reviewed the merits of only those fully exhausted in state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance: failure to raise voluntary intoxication defense	Counsel should have investigated and presented such a defense.	Counsel strategically pursued self-defense; intoxication unsupported.	No prejudice; court denial reasonable; no habeas relief.
Ineffective assistance: other trial/appellate errors	Trial and appellate counsel failed to object, investigate, or challenge errors.	Claims were defaulted/waived due to procedural failings.	Claims procedurally defaulted, not reviewable on habeas.
State used perjured testimony/withheld evidence	State relied on/withheld critical witness information (Detective Halloran).	Claims defaulted for failing to exhaust through one full state review.	Procedurally defaulted and not excused; not reached on merits.
Detention & confession violated constitutional rights	Detained over 48 hours without judicial review; confession coerced.	Petitioner failed to exhaust remedies or show cause/prejudice.	Claims defaulted and/or lack merit; not reviewable on habeas.
Consecutive sentencing in violation of Alleyne	Consecutive sentences determined by judge, not jury, violating Sixth Amendment.	Alleyne is not retroactive; mandatory consecutive sentences were proper.	No relief: Alleyne not retroactive, facts found by jury, Illinois law followed.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (U.S. 2011) (AEDPA deference for state court decisions on habeas)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (sets standards for §2254 review)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts increasing statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to a jury)