Serrano v. Bates
1:11-cv-03327
N.D. Ill.Apr 17, 2012Background
- Petitioner Serrano pleaded guilty in 2002 to attempted murder and cannabis with intent to deliver.
- He received a total sentence of 15 years (14 years for attempted murder plus 1 year MSR for possession) with a three-year MSR for the attempted murder count not disclosed at sentencing.
- He later argued he would not have plead guilty had he known of the three-year MSR.
- Illinois appellate and supreme court history on Whitfield and Morris addressed whether MSR added post-plea constitutes breach or retroactive relief.
- This federal habeas petition challenges the state appellate denial under AEDPA review and asserts a Santobello claim was not addressed on the merits.
- The district court denied the petition and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Serrano’s petition is timely under §2244(d). | Serrano argues the State failed to prove timeliness. | The State contends petition untimely per §2244(d)(1). | Timeliness assumed but ultimately not fatal to the denial. |
| Whether the appellate court addressed Santobello on the merits. | Serrano claims de novo review due to meritless merits disposition. | Appellate court addressed the merits and found the argument unpersuasive. | Appellate court properly addressed the merits; no AEDPA violation. |
| Whether there is clearly established federal law requiring MSR advisement in plea context. | Serrano relies on Whitfield to claim a due process breach. | No clearly established Supreme Court rule requiring such advisement. | No clearly established federal law to support relief; petition denied. |
| Whether the petition warrants relief under AEDPA’s standards and state court decisions were reasonable. | Petitioner contends state court misapplied clearly established law. | State court decision reasonable under AEDPA, given lack of clearly established law. | State court decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (failure to honor plea agreement and related remedies)
- Lockhart v. Chandler, 446 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2006) (no due process right to MSR advisement in plea context; retroactivity issues)
- Gildon v. Bowen, 384 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2004) (timeliness burden on state; timing facts matters)
- Etherly v. Davis, 619 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2010) (threshold clearly established law; AEDPA review framework)
- House v. Hatch, 527 F.3d 1010 (10th Cir. 2008) (definition of clearly established federal law for AEDPA)
- Arredondo v. Huibregtse, 542 F.3d 1155 (7th Cir. 2008) (scope of substantial showing for COA; Slack standard)