People v. Chaffin
| Decision Date | 29 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1-20-0453 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DARNELL CHAFFIN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 10 CR 14137 (02) Honorable Neera Walsh, Judge Presiding.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: Second-stage dismissal of defendant's untimely post-conviction petition was proper where defendant failed to show that the delay in filing was not due to his culpable negligence, and where he failed to make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation.
¶ 2 Defendant, Darnell Chaffin, was convicted of armed robbery with a firearm after a jury trial, and was sentenced to 21 years' imprisonment. In this appeal, defendant challenges the denial of his post-conviction petition at the second stage of proceedings.
¶ 3 The evidence elicited at defendant's trial was set out in the Rule 23 order entered on defendant's direct appeal (People v. Chaffin, 2016 IL App (1st) 143962-U), and we will summarize that evidence below. Specifically, the record shows that defendant was arrested on July 20, 2010, in connection with the armed robbery of Tedmund Gordon earlier that afternoon on South Kostner Avenue in Chicago. Several attorneys entered appearances on defendant's behalf throughout the pre-trial proceedings, however defendant ultimately elected to represent himself during the jury trial.
¶ 4 At trial, the victim, Tedmund Gordon, testified that at approximately 2:30 p.m. on July 20, 2010, he was approached by two men, one white and the other black, near Gladys and Kostner Avenues in Chicago. Velasquez testified that the white man, later identified as Jovani Velasquez, pointed a gun at Gordon's chest and said, "Give me your money," while the black man stood approximately three feet behind Gordon. The men robbed Gordon of $840 in cash before running away in the same direction. During his testimony, Gordon identified the firearm that was used in the armed robbery. When questioned by defendant on cross-examination, Gordon testified that defendant, who is black, was not the black man who participated in the robbery.
¶ 5 Several police officers testified regarding the investigation into the offense. Their testimony established that a Trailblazer matching the description of a vehicle connected to a reported robbery on Kostner was stopped on Lake Street. Officers identified defendant as the front passenger and co-defendant, Jovani Velasquez, as the rear driver side passenger. Police recovered a loaded .38 caliber firearm from the Trailblazer and over $700 from defendant's shoe. The officers also testified that Gordon arrived at the scene of the traffic stop and spontaneously pointed to defendant and Velasquez and identified them as the perpetrators. Later that day, Gordon identified photographs of defendant and Velasquez as his assailants.
¶ 6 In the defense case-in-chief, defendant called Velasquez who testified that he pleaded guilty to armed robbery arising from this incident, but Velasquez denied that defendant was involved. Velasquez claimed that he committed the robbery with two other individuals who were found in the Trailblazer and that defendant was not with them when they were stopped.
¶ 7 Defendant testified that he "did not take any part in this robbery." He claimed that he was "snatched off the street by the police officers" and arrested after exiting the L train on his way to a barber shop. Defendant testified that he knew Velasquez in high school, but denied that they were friends.
¶ 8 In rebuttal, the State called an Assistant State's Attorney who testified that during Velasquez's plea hearing, she asked Velasquez several questions regarding the facts of the offense while he was under oath. Velasquez identified a photograph of defendant and confirmed that defendant committed the robbery with him and was in the Trailblazer when it was stopped by police.
¶ 9 Based on the above evidence, defendant was found guilty by a jury of armed robbery with a firearm. Defendant was sentenced to six years for armed robbery, plus a mandatory 15-year firearm enhancement, for a total aggregate sentence of 21 years' imprisonment.
¶ 10 On direct appeal, this court rejected several claims raised by defendant, including, among others, that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the State erred in making comments in closing arguments that suggested that Gordon's failure to identify defendant at trial was the result of intimidation. Regarding the latter argument, this court explained that, in examining the prosecutor's argument that Gordon may have been intimidated to testify, "intimidate" would be considered, not "in the criminal sense, but in its commonly understood meaning," specifically," 'to make timid or fearful.'" Chaffin, 2016 IL App (1st) 143962-U, ¶ 56, quoting Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 613 (10th ed.1995). We found no error in the prosecutor's arguments, concluding that it was reasonable to argue that Gordon might be timid or fearful when confronted and questioned directly by defendant, who, as stated above, represented himself at trial.
¶ 11 On July 25, 2019, defendant filed a post-conviction petition, arguing that: 1) because he was 17 years old at the time of the offense, the mandatory imposition of the 15-year enhancement violated the Eighth Amendment and the Proportionate Penalties Clause of the Illinois Constitution; 2) he was denied due process because the State suppressed exculpatory evidence from Gordon; and 3) the State made a false inference that Gordon had been intimidated by defendant or his family. Defendant included an affidavit from Gordon, signed and notarized February 18, 2019, in which Gordon averred that he told prosecutors that he was not contacted by defendant or his family prior to trial and that defendant was not the man who robbed him.
¶ 12 On September 11, 2019, the State filed a motion to dismiss defendant's post-conviction petition, arguing that: 1) defendant's filing was untimely where it was due in August 2018, six months after the denial of his writ of certiorari, but it was not filed until July 2019; 2) defendant's petition was invalid because he failed to attach a verification affidavit; 3) res judicata barred defendant's claim about the State's inferences regarding Gordon; 4) defendant failed to present an as-applied proportionate penalties analysis regarding his challenge to his sentence; and 5) defendant failed to demonstrate a due process or a Brady violation.
¶ 13 Defendant filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief on November 21, 2019, which included a verification page and a transcript of the sentencing hearing. In the amended petition, defendant focused his challenge on two specific arguments: that the 15-year firearm enhancement violated the eighth amendment and proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution because he was a juvenile at the time of the offense; and that the State withheld evidence that Gordon told prosecutors neither defendant nor his family had contacted him, despite arguing for an inference that Gordon had been intimidated.
¶ 14 On November 25, 2019, the State filed a motion to dismiss defendant's amended petition, generally re-alleging the same arguments made in their initial motion to dismiss, as well as arguing that defendant's sentencing argument was barred by forfeiture because he could have raised it on direct appeal.
¶ 15 On January 6, 2020, defendant filed a response to the motion to dismiss. Defendant acknowledged the untimeliness of his petition, but argued that he showed an absence of culpable negligence because People v. Barnes, 2018 IL App (5th) 140278 and People v. Aikens, 2016 IL App (1st) 133578, established a "new rule" that "must be applied retroactively," specifically, that a mandatory firearm enhancement violated the Illinois constitution, and could not be "automatically applied to a juvenile offender." Regarding his Brady claim, defendant argued that he also established a lack of culpable negligence because he was not aware of Gordon's interactions with police until Gordon signed his affidavit in February 2019.
¶ 16 On January 8, 2020, the court granted the State's motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing defendant's post-conviction petition. The court held that defendant's post-conviction petition was untimely because the time limit for filing a petition expired August 20, 2018, yet defendant did not file his petition until July of 2019. Further, the court found that defendant had not shown that the delay in filing was not due to his culpable negligence, concluding that defendant could have asserted an as-applied constitutional claim in his direct appeal or in a timely filed postconviction petition, particularly because Aikens, 2016 IL App (1st) 133578, on which defendant relied, was decided two years before defendant's petition was due.
¶ 17 The court further concluded that defendant's claim regarding the firearm enhancement was forfeited since petitioner could have raised the claim in his direct appeal. The court rejected defendant's claim that Barnes created a "new substantive rule that applies retroactively," explaining that no Illinois court has held that firearm enhancements are unconstitutional as applied to all juveniles, but rather the courts have considered whether enhancements were disproportionate as applied to the individuals in those particular cas...
To continue reading
Request your trial