People v. Jones

Decision Date08 September 2017
Docket NumberNo. 1-12-3371,1-12-3371
Citation2017 IL App (1st) 123371,87 N.E.3d 938
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anteleto JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Michael J. Pelletier, Patricia Mysza, and Jennifer L. Bontrager, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Miles J. Keleher, and Christine Cook, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant Anteleto Jones was convicted in 2003 of first degree murder and sentenced to 44 years' imprisonment. In 2011, he filed a pro se motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition that alleged two claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence of (1) an eyewitness to the murder and (2) police misconduct and coercion to obtain defendant's confession. The circuit court denied both defendant's motion for leave to file the petition and subsequent motion to reconsider that denial.

¶ 2 On appeal, defendant argues the circuit court erroneously denied him leave to file a successive postconviction petition because he presented a colorable claim of actual innocence based on the affidavit of Telvin Shaw, which defendant claims is newly discovered exculpatory evidence. Defendant also argues for the first time on appeal that he established cause and prejudice to file a successive postconviction petition because previously unavailable evidence showed that the police officers who coerced his confession were liable in a civil case of fabricating a confession in another murder investigation.

¶ 3 On June 30, 2016, a majority panel of this court reversed and remanded the circuit court's denial of defendant's motion for leave to file his successive postconviction petition. However, after the State filed a petition for rehearing and defendant filed an answer, this court, on December 6, 2016, allowed the State's petition for rehearing, which nullified the June 2016 opinion by operation of law. Oral argument was held on December 13, 2016.

¶ 4 For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court, which did not err by denying defendant leave to file his successive postconviction petition.

¶ 5 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 6 Defendant Anteleto Jones was convicted in 2003 of the first degree murder of Jerry Green and found to have personally discharged a firearm during the offense. The shooting occurred about 5 a.m. on January 8, 2000, when the victim attempted to enter his parked car after leaving the house of his friend, Curtis Moore. The victim's relative, Lawrence Green, also resided at that house. Lawrence was the leader of a street gang faction that was at war with the rival faction to which defendant belonged. The victim, however, was not affiliated with either gang faction.

¶ 7 Defendant was arrested in March 2000 and gave statements to the police and a videotaped confession admitting to his participation in the offense and implicating codefendants Melvin Jones and Travis Ashby. All three were charged with the first degree murder of the victim.

¶ 8 A. Pretrial and Jury Trial

¶ 9 Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress his statements, asserting that he (1) had been interrogated after electing to remain silent and requesting an attorney and (2) had been physically coerced by the polygraph examiner, Officer Robert Bartik, who allegedly pushed, shoved, and punched defendant. At the suppression hearing in October 2001, Officer Bartik and Detectives Robert Lenihan, Timothy Nolan, and Michael Rose denied defendant's allegations. Defendant did not testify or call any witnesses. The trial court denied the motion to suppress.

¶ 10 Defendant and Ashby were tried simultaneously before separate juries in January 2003. The State's evidence showed that defendant, Melvin, and Ashby were members of the same gang faction. On the date in question, they agreed to arm themselves and go into rival gang territory to Lawrence Green's house and shoot him. Their plan was retaliation for a humiliating beating Melvin had received the day before in front of his girlfriend. Lawrence's house, 7159 South Seeley Avenue, was at the end of the block on the northeast corner of the intersection of Seeley Avenue and 72nd Street. The victim had parked his two-door car across the street from the house, on the south side of 72nd Street and facing east toward Damen Avenue. A garage that faced 72nd Street was in front, or east, of the victim's car.

¶ 11 According to defendant's statements to the detectives and his videotaped statement, he, Ashby, and Melvin left their car near 73rd Street and walked north through the alley between Damen and Seeley Avenues toward 72nd Street. Ashby and Melvin waited in the alley on the north side of 72nd Street, behind Lawrence's house, and defendant waited in the alley on the south side of 72nd street, behind a garage. The group waited about 10 or 15 minutes and saw the victim exit Lawrence's house and cross 72nd Street to the victim's parked car. Melvin left the north alley first, approached the victim, stood in front of him, confronted him, and swore at him. Melvin stood about two feet in front of the victim by the open car door. The victim waved his hands and said he was not involved in the matter. When Ashby emerged from the north alley, he walked about three to four feet behind Melvin and went about three feet to the right side of Melvin. When defendant left the south alley, he went about 8 to 10 feet behind them and about 8 to 10 feet on the far left side of Melvin. Melvin, who used a .380 semiautomatic gun, fired six or seven gunshots, and the victim fell to the ground. Ashby, who used either a .45 or a 9-millimeter gun, fired three to four gunshots. Defendant used a .357 handgun and fired two gunshots toward the victim as he was falling. Melvin ran east on 72nd Street toward Damen Avenue, and Ashby and defendant ran south down the alley toward 73rd Street.

¶ 12 Inside the house, Moore was using a phone and heard 5 to 10 gunshots, some of which seemed like they were right next to his window, while others did not sound as loud. Moore dropped the phone, woke his fiancée, and told her the victim had just gone outside. Moore left his bedroom and went to the back of the house, looked out a window, and then went outside. He found the victim unresponsive and lying on his side in the street by the door of his car. His feet pointed toward the front of the car and his head toward the rear of the car. Moore did not see who shot the victim, nor did he see anyone run from the scene. People began to come outside, and Moore told someone to call 911. The victim sustained five gunshot wounds and died at the hospital.

¶ 13 Odis Deal, who lived nearby at 7200 South Damen Avenue, testified that he heard the gunfire at about 5 a.m. He first heard two to three gunshots, and then eight or nine gunshots followed, one right after the other. Deal had been in the army and heard gunfire before. The first two or three gunshots sounded different from the rest, like the shots were coming from two or three different guns. About five to six minutes after the firing stopped, Deal went outside to the back of his home, which was located on the southwest corner of 72nd Street and Damen Avenue. He saw police cars and an ambulance and then went back inside.

¶ 14 The police recovered numerous shell casings on both sides of the victim's car. They recovered six PMC-brand .380 auto cartridge casings, all predominantly in the street alongside or immediately in front of the car. Two of the .380 casings were near the driver's side door toward the rear of the car. Another casing was to the rear of the car, and three additional casings were recovered from the street. A fired bullet was also observed adjacent to the driver's door next to a set of keys. The State's forensic scientist who examined the recovered firearms evidence concluded that the six PMC .380 cartridge casings were all chambered in the same weapon. He was unable to determine whether the shell casings were actually fired from the same weapon because the breech face marks lacked the individual characteristics necessary to make an identification.

¶ 15 Additionally, the police recovered two FC-brand 9-millimeter Luger cartridge casings on the passenger side of the car at the curb area near the front of the victim's car. The State's forensic scientist determined that the two FC 9-millimeter Luger casings were fired from the same weapon. He also testified that the bullet recovered from the crime scene and the two bullets recovered from the autopsy had the class characteristics of a .380 or 9-millimeter bullet with six lands and grooves and a right twist. They could be fired from either a .380 or a 9-millimeter gun. In comparing these bullets, he determined that all three were fired from the same firearm. Finally, assuming that a .357-caliber weapon was used, he testified that he would not expect to find shell casings because .357 handguns are normally revolvers, which do not automatically eject their spent casings.

¶ 16 The police at the scene noted two bullet holes in the overhead door of the garage that faced 72nd street and was in front of the victim's car. The bullet holes seemed to be new because there was no corrosion or wear and tear in the holes and the dislodged paint chips appeared fresh. The police were unable to locate any spent rounds or fragments inside the garage due to the accumulation of debris. The testimony of police officers and photographs of the scene admitted into evidence showed that shrubbery and trees blocked certain views east and west on 72nd street.

¶ 17 The post-mortem examination of the victim found evidence of five gunshot wounds and additional abrasions or scrapes. One entry wound to the victim's right shoulder involved the heart and abdominal cavity, and a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. Simms
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 3, 2020
    ...petitions are disfavored under the Act," and a defendant must first obtain leave of the court under one of two exceptions. People v. Jones , 2017 IL App (1st) 123371, ¶¶ 41, 45, 417 Ill.Dec. 186, 87 N.E.3d 938. In order to file a successive petition, the defendant's petition must satisfy th......
  • People v. Jackson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 28, 2018
    ...similar to those of the defendant can serve as cause for failing to fully raise that claim in prior proceedings." People v. Jones , 2017 IL App (1st) 123371, ¶ 181, 417 Ill.Dec. 186, 87 N.E.3d 938 (citing Almodovar , 2013 IL App (1st) 101476, ¶¶ 64-68, 368 Ill.Dec. 375, 984 N.E.2d 100 ). He......
  • People v. Woods
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 31, 2020
    ...material and not merely cumulative, and of such a conclusive character that it would probably change the result on retrial. People v. Jones , 2017 IL App (1st) 123371, ¶ 43, 417 Ill.Dec. 186, 87 N.E.3d 938. Newly discovered evidence is evidence that was not available at trial, such that def......
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 25, 2019
    ..., 205 Ill. 2d 444, 456, 275 Ill.Dec. 838, 793 N.E.2d 609 (2002) ), and successive postconviction petitions are disfavored ( People v. Jones , 2017 IL App (1st) 123371, ¶ 41, 417 Ill.Dec. 186, 87 N.E.3d 938 ). There are three stages in the postconviction petition process. People v. Little , ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT