People v. Snow, 4–11–0415.
| Decision Date | 05 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 4–11–0415.,4–11–0415. |
| Citation | 964 N.E.2d 1139,2012 IL App (4th) 110415 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. James C. SNOW, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jon Loevy, Russell Ainsworth, Gayle Horn, Tara Thompson (argued), Elizabeth Wang, Exoneration Project, Univ. of Chicago Law School, Chicago, for James Snow.
William A. Yoder, McLean County State's Attorney (Patrick Delfino, Director, Robert J. Biderman, Dep. Director, Anastacia R. Brooks (argued), Staff Atty., State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 Defendant, James C. Snow, appeals the McLean County circuit court's (1) dismissal of his amended postconviction petition at the second-stage of the proceedings, (2) denial of his March 2011 motion to supplement the record, and (3) denial of his motion for ballistics testing. On appeal, defendant only challenges the court's dismissal of the claims in his amended postconviction petition and the denial of his motion for ballistics testing. We affirm.
¶ 3 In September 1999, a grand jury charged defendant with three counts of first degree murder (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 38, ¶¶ 9–1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3)) for the death of William Little on March 31, 1991. Defendant's January 2001 trial took place over the course of nine days, and the parties presented testimony from 56 witnesses. Defendant was represented by Frank Picl and Patrick Riley and the State was represented by then McLean County State's Attorney Charles Reynard and assistant Teena Griffin. The jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder on all three counts. Defendant filed a posttrial motion and a pro se motion asserting he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel. After an April 2001 hearing, the trial court concluded defendant received effective assistance of counsel and declined to appoint new counsel for defendant. In May 2001, the court denied defendant's posttrial motion and sentenced defendant to natural life in prison. Defendant then filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, which the court denied. Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences.
¶ 4 On appeal, defendant argued (1) the trial court erred by not appointing him new counsel for a hearing on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, (2) the court erred by not allowing him to present expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification, (3) the court erred in admitting several pieces of evidence, (4) the prosecutor made several improper remarks during her closing arguments, (5) the court erred in giving an accountability instruction, (6) the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, (7) he was denied effective assistance of counsel, and (8) the court erred in sentencing him to natural life in prison. This court vacated defendant's convictions and sentences on the knowing-murder and felony-murder counts because defendant could only stand convicted of one murder for Little's death (see People v. Cardona, 158 Ill.2d 403, 412, 199 Ill.Dec. 667, 634 N.E.2d 720, 724 (1994)) and affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for intentional murder in all other respects. People v. Snow, No. 4–01–0435, 351 Ill.App.3d 1188, 315 Ill.Dec. 330, 876 N.E.2d 330 (Aug. 20, 2004) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). The Supreme Court of Illinois denied defendant's petition for leave to appeal. People v. Snow, 212 Ill.2d 549, 291 Ill.Dec. 714, 824 N.E.2d 290 (2004).
¶ 5 In May 2004, defendant filed his pro se postconviction petition. The next month, he filed a pro se supplemental amendment to his petition. In February 2006, defendant filed a pro se second supplemental amendment to his postconviction petition. The next month, defendant's counsel filed an amended postconviction petition. In January 2008, defendant again filed a pro se amended postconviction petition. In April 2008, the Exoneration Project entered its appearance on defendant's behalf.
¶ 6 In January 2010, the Exoneration Project filed a motion for discovery and a 53–page amended petition for postconviction relief. Attached to the amended petition were 32 exhibits. The amended motion did not indicate it incorporated or is a supplement to defendant's other postconviction petitions. The next month, defendant filed a motion to transfer venue, noting former McLean County State's Attorney Reynard had become a circuit court judge and would likely be a witness at an evidentiary hearing. In April 2010, the State filed a motion to dismiss defendant's amended postconviction petition. Thereafter, in response to defendant's motion to transfer venue, Judge Alesia A. McMillen of Schuyler County was assigned to hear this case. In August 2010, defendant filed (1) a response to the State's motion to dismiss and (2) a motion to supplement the record with two additional exhibits. On November 5, 2010, the trial court held a hearing on the State's motion to dismiss. By agreement of the parties, the court allowed defendant's August 2010 motion to supplement. The court took the motion to dismiss under advisement. The parties both later filed supplemental responses addressing the matters raised by the court at the hearing on the State's motion to dismiss. In March 2011, defendant filed another motion to supplement the record with newly discovered evidence, consisting of three more exhibits. He also filed a motion for postconviction ballistics testing under section 116–3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Procedure Code) (725 ILCS 5/116–3 (West 2010)). On April 21, 2011, the trial court filed its order, granting the State's motion to dismiss defendant's amended postconviction petition. The court's dismissal mooted defendant's motion for discovery, which the court never heard. On May 9, 2011, the court filed an order, denying defendant's March 2011 motion to supplement the record and motion for ballistics testing.
¶ 7 On May 16, 2011, defendant filed his notice of appeal in sufficient compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 606 (eff. Mar. 20, 2009). See Ill. S.Ct. R. 651(d) (eff. Dec. 1, 1984) (providing the supreme court rules governing criminal appeals apply to appeals in postconviction proceedings). The notice of appeal stated defendant was appealing the “[w]ritten rulings of April 19, 2011 and May 9, 2011, denying [defendant]'s post-conviction petition, motions to supplement, and motions for ballistic testing.” Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 651(a) (eff. Dec. 1, 1984).
¶ 10 Defendant first asserts the trial court erred by dismissing his amended postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing. In support of his contention, defendant specifically contends the court applied the wrong standard of review and erred by dismissing his (1) actual-innocence claim; (2) ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim; (3) claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); (4) other due-process claims; and (5) cumulative-error claim.
¶ 11 Initially, we remind defendant, the appellant in this case, of the briefing requirements on appeal. As this court has noted in a second-stage dismissal case, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) provides, “ ‘[p]oints not argued [in the appellant's brief] are waived and shall not be raised in the reply brief, in oral argument, or on petition for rehearing.’ ” People v. Borello, 389 Ill.App.3d 985, 998, 329 Ill.Dec. 639, 906 N.E.2d 1250, 1261 (2009) (quoting Ill. S.Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Sept. 1, 2006)). Additionally, Rule 341(h)(7) requires the contentions raised in the argument section of the brief to be supported by citation to legal authority and the pages of the record relied on, not the appendix. Ill. S.Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Sept. 1, 2006). The failure to do so results in forfeiture of the argument. Byrd v. Hamer, 408 Ill.App.3d 467, 487, 347 Ill.Dec. 825, 943 N.E.2d 115, 134 (2011). Moreover, this court is not a depository into which the appellant can dump his burden of argument and research. See Barth v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 371 Ill.App.3d 498, 507, 311 Ill.Dec. 123, 867 N.E.2d 1109, 1117 (2007). Accordingly, we only will address the issues and supporting evidence properly raised in defendant's brief.
¶ 13 The Post–Conviction Hearing Act (Postconviction Act) (725 ILCS 5/art. 122 (West 2004)) provides a remedy for defendants who have suffered a substantial violation of constitutional rights at trial. People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill.2d 458, 471, 308 Ill.Dec. 434, 861 N.E.2d 999, 1007 (2006). In cases not involving the death penalty, the Postconviction Act sets forth three stages of proceedings. Pendleton, 223 Ill.2d at 471–72, 308 Ill.Dec. 434, 861 N.E.2d at 1007.
¶ 14 At the first stage, the trial court independently reviews the defendant's postconviction petition and determines whether “the petition is frivolous or is patently without merit.” 725 ILCS 5/122–2.1(a)(2) (West 2004). If it finds the petition is frivolous or patently without merit, the court must dismiss the petition. 725 ILCS 5/122–2.1(a)(2) (West 2004). If the court does not dismiss the petition, it proceeds to the second stage, where, if necessary, the court appoints the defendant counsel. Pendleton, 223 Ill.2d at 472, 308 Ill.Dec. 434, 861 N.E.2d at 1007. Defense counsel may amend the defendant's petition to ensure his or her contentions are adequately presented. Pendleton, 223 Ill.2d at 472, 308 Ill.Dec. 434, 861 N.E.2d at 1007. Also, at the second stage, the State may file a motion to dismiss the defendant's petition or an answer to it. Pendleton, 223 Ill.2d at 472, 308 Ill.Dec. 434, 861 N.E.2d at 1008. If the State does not file a motion to dismiss or the court denies such a motion, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Begay
-
People v. Rosalez
..., 2015 IL App (2d) 140485, ¶ 24, 389 Ill.Dec. 814, 27 N.E.3d 656 ; People v. Snow , 2012 IL App (4th) 110415, ¶ 21, 358 Ill.Dec. 117, 964 N.E.2d 1139 ; People v. Coleman , 381 Ill. App. 3d 561, 568, 319 Ill.Dec. 771, 886 N.E.2d 534 (2008) (Third District). Interestingly, both Barnslater and......
- People v. Jones
- People v. Warren