People v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 29 May 2012
• Docket Number: No. 111711.,111711.
• Citation: 2012 IL 111711,969 N.E.2d 829,360 Ill.Dec. 784
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Walter EDWARDS, Appellant.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

2012 IL 111711
969 N.E.2d 829
360 Ill.Dec. 784

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,
v.
Walter EDWARDS, Appellant.

No. 111711.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 19, 2012.
Rehearing Denied May 29, 2012.

[969 N.E.2d 831]

Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Alan D. Goldberg, Deputy Defender, and Shawn O'Toole, Assistant Appellate Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, Chicago, for appellant.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Springfield, and Anita Alvarez, State's Attorney, Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Michelle Katz, Annette Collins,

[969 N.E.2d 832]

Michele Grimaldi Stein and Tasha-Marie Kelly, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

Karen L. Daniel, Joshua A. Tepfer and William Trevena, Chicago, and Rebecca Stephens, law student, for amicus curiae Center on Wrongful Convictions.

OPINION
Justice FREEMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

[360 Ill.Dec. 787]¶ 1 Petitioner, Walter Edwards, appeals from orders of the circuit court of Cook County denying him leave to file his third and fourth successive petitions for relief under the Post–Conviction Hearing Act (Act) ( 725 ILCS 5/122–1 et seq. (West 2006)). The pro se petitions alleged actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence. The two cases were consolidated on appeal, and a divided panel of our appellate court affirmed. Nos. 1–07–0714, 1–08–1089 cons. (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 In January 1999 the State charged petitioner and six other individuals ¹ with the first degree murder of Jacqueline Bernaugh. Petitioner was tried separately by jury and was found guilty under a theory of accountability. He was sentenced to 28 years' imprisonment.

¶ 4 Petitioner admitted his involvement in the murder in a transcribed statement to police. He was 15 years old at the time. Prior to trial, petitioner moved unsuccessfully to suppress the statement, alleging it was not voluntary.

¶ 5 In the statement, which was published at trial, petitioner acknowledged he was a member of a street gang, the Renegade Vice Lords (Renegades), which was at war with a rival gang, the Mafia Insane Vice Lords (Mafias). Petitioner stated two of the Mafias killed his friend and fellow gang member, Elijah McLachlan. According to petitioner's statement, on November 29, 1998, following McLachlan's funeral, petitioner and other gang members went to the home of fellow gang member Lawrence Coleman and discussed a plan to avenge McLachlan by killing some of the Mafias. Petitioner stated he and a group of fellow Renegades went to a building on South Exchange Avenue in Chicago where one of the Mafias lived. Petitioner and other Renegades, including Eddie Coleman, who was armed with a shotgun, positioned themselves around the building and waited for one of the Mafias to emerge. As petitioner waited across the street, his companions, who were closer to the building, began shooting at a woman who was standing at a window inside the building. Petitioner stated he fired his gun in the air so his companions would know he fired his weapon.

¶ 6 An autopsy indicated Bernaugh died of a shotgun wound to the face.

¶ 7 Petitioner's statement was the only evidence at trial placing him at the scene of the crime. None of the State's eyewitnesses identified him as being there, and the State introduced no physical evidence linking him to the crime. Petitioner did not testify, and the defense rested without presenting evidence.

¶ 8 Petitioner's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. People v. Edwards, No. 1–00–2332, 324 Ill.App.3d 1130, 282 Ill.Dec. 133, 805 N.E.2d 752 (2001) (unpublished order under Supreme [360 Ill.Dec. 788]

[969 N.E.2d 833]

Court Rule 23). This court denied leave to appeal. People v. Edwards, 197 Ill.2d 569, 261 Ill.Dec. 524, 763 N.E.2d 773 (2001) (table).

¶ 9 In July 2002 petitioner filed an initial pro se postconviction petition alleging his constitutional rights were violated when he was questioned outside the presence of his legal guardian or a youth officer. Petitioner also alleged the circuit court violated his right to due process when it denied his motion to suppress his statement. The circuit court dismissed the petition as frivolous and without merit, and the appellate court affirmed ( People v. Edwards, No. 1–02–2563, 344 Ill.App.3d 1212, 307 Ill.Dec. 315, 859 N.E.2d 315 (2003) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23)). This court denied leave to appeal. People v. Edwards, 209 Ill.2d 588, 286 Ill.Dec. 168, 813 N.E.2d 225 (2004) (table). In January 2006 petitioner sought leave to file a successive pro se postconviction petition alleging, inter alia, actual innocence. Petitioner claimed he had newly discovered evidence, including an affidavit from codefendant Sam Taylor, showing petitioner was actually innocent of the murder. In that affidavit, Taylor named people who were present with him at Lawrence Coleman's home on November 29, 1998, after McLachlan's funeral. Petitioner's name was not mentioned. The circuit court denied leave to file the successive petition, finding petitioner failed to meet the cause-and-prejudice test set forth in section 122–1(f) of the Act (725 ILCS 5/122–1(f) (West 2006)). The court also found the issues raised in the petition were frivolous and patently without merit. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed ( People v. Edwards, No. 1–06–1986, 229 Ill.2d 638, 325 Ill.Dec. 9, 897 N.E.2d 257 (2008) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23)). This court denied leave to appeal. People v. Edwards, 229 Ill.2d 638, 325 Ill.Dec. 9, 897 N.E.2d 257 (2008) (table).

¶ 10 In September 2006 petitioner sought leave to file his third postconviction petition. In this petition, as in the second, petitioner alleged actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence. Attached to the petition was an affidavit from fellow Renegade Eddie Coleman, who stated that he, Willie Richards and “Little Mikey” were the shooters, and that petitioner, Lawrence Coleman, Kentrell Culbreath and Octavius Sims “had nothing to do with this shooting.” Eddie explained he did not come forward earlier because “all I cared about was my freedom.” ² Also attached to the petition was an affidavit from Lawrence Coleman, who stated he received Eddie Coleman's affidavit on January 3, 2006, and gave a copy to petitioner on May 15, 2006, “because this new evidence I recieved [ sic ] pertained to [petitioner] also.”

¶ 11 In a written order dated November 6, 2006, the circuit court denied leave to file the third petition, finding petitioner failed to satisfy the cause-and-prejudice test, and the issue raised in the petition was frivolous and patently without merit.³ Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, which the court also denied. Petitioner appealed, and the appeal was docketed under case No. 1–07–0714.

¶ 12 In January 2008 petitioner sought leave to file his fourth postconviction petition. Here again, as in petitioner's second [360 Ill.Dec. 789]

[969 N.E.2d 834]

and third petitions, he alleged actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence. Attached to the new petition were alibi affidavits from Dominique and Kathleen Coleman which, according to petitioner, established that he was with them in their residence “before, during, and after the shooting took place.” In their affidavits, Dominique and Kathleen stated that petitioner went to their residence on November 29, 1998, after McLachlan's funeral, and he remained there until the next morning, November 30, when they all left and attended McLachlan's burial. In explaining why she did not come forward earlier, Dominique stated in her affidavit that she was a minor at the time of the incident, and her mother, Kathleen, forbade her from speaking out. Kathleen stated in her affidavit that she herself was afraid to get involved in the case, “being as serious as it was.” Kathleen added that several of her family members were “already supposedly involved with this crime.” She stated that although defense counsel contacted her numerous times to try to convince her to testify on petitioner's behalf, she refused to do so and refused to allow her daughter to do so. Kathleen also was uncooperative with investigators sent by petitioner since his incarceration.

¶ 13 Petitioner also argued in his petition that he was denied due process of law because his “illegally obtained” statement was admitted into evidence.

¶ 14 In a written order dated March 19, 2008, the circuit court denied leave to file the fourth postconviction petition, finding petitioner failed to satisfy the cause-and-prejudice test. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, and the appeal was docketed under case No. 1–08–1089.

¶ 15 On appeal, case Nos. 1–07–0714 (the third postconviction petition) and 1–08–1089 (the fourth petition) were consolidated. The appellate court majority affirmed the circuit court's denial of leave to file the petitions, holding that petitioner failed to state a valid claim of actual innocence. Nos. 1–07–0714, 1–08–1089 cons. (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).

¶ 16 The majority noted People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill.2d 319, 336 Ill.Dec. 16, 919 N.E.2d 941 (2009), which was decided while the instant case was pending before the appellate court. Ortiz held that “where a defendant sets forth a claim of actual innocence in a successive postconviction petition, the defendant is excused from showing cause and prejudice.” Id. at 330, 336 Ill.Dec. 16, 919 N.E.2d 941. The appellate court majority concluded supplemental briefing on this issue was unnecessary. The majority's holding here was based, not on the cause-and-prejudice test, but rather on petitioner's failure “to state a claim of actual innocence.” Nos. 1–07–0714, 1–08–1089 cons. (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). In the majority's view, “[t]he facts in this case would not warrant relief under Ortiz.” Id.

...