People v. Wrice

Citation357 Ill.Dec. 33,2012 IL 111860,962 N.E.2d 934
Decision Date02 February 2012
Docket NumberNo. 111860.,111860.
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Stanley WRICE, Appellee.
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Stuart A. Nudelman, Special State's Attorney, of Chicago (Myles P. O'Rourke, Andrew N. Levine, Rafael A. Bombino and Brian J. Stefanich, Assistant Special State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Alan D. Goldberg, Deputy Defender, and Heidi Linn Lambros, Assistant Appellate Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Chicago, for appellee.

Robert M. Stephenson and Steven W. Becker, of Becker Stephenson LLC, of

Chicago, for amicus curiae the Chicago Innocence Project.G. Flint Taylor, Jr., and Joey L. Moguel, of the People's Law Office, and Locke E. Bowman and Alexa A. Van Brunt, all of Chicago, for amicus curiae Persons Concerned about the Integrity of the Illinois Criminal Justice System.

OPINION

Justice THEIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion:

[357 Ill.Dec. 35] ¶ 1 In October 2007, defendant Stanley Wrice filed a petition in the circuit court of Cook County seeking leave to file a second successive postconviction petition challenging his 1983 convictions for rape and deviate sexual assault. Defendant alleged that newly discovered evidence substantiated his prior claim that his confession was the product of police brutality and torture. The trial court denied defendant leave to file his successive postconviction petition. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a third-stage evidentiary hearing, holding that defendant had satisfied the cause-and-prejudice test for successive postconviction petitions. 406 Ill.App.3d 43, 346 Ill.Dec. 102, 940 N.E.2d 102.

¶ 2 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the appellate court's judgment reversing the trial court's order denying leave to file, but remand the cause to the trial court for appointment of postconviction counsel and second-stage postconviction proceedings.

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In the early morning hours of September 9, 1982, 33–year–old K.B. was sexually assaulted, beaten, and burned. Several men, including defendant, were implicated in the attack, which occurred in the attic of defendant's Chicago residence. Defendant, then 28 years old, was charged with numerous offenses, including rape and deviate sexual assault. Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress inculpatory statements he allegedly made to investigators arguing, inter alia, that the statements were made “as a result of psychological, physical and mental coercion” by Detective Peter Dignan and Sergeant John Byrne.1

¶ 5 At the suppression hearing, Dignan, Byrne, and Dioguardi testified regarding events following defendant's arrest on the morning of September 9, 1982. According to their testimony, defendant was taken to Area 2 Violent Crimes Headquarters, arriving there between 7 a.m. and 7:15 a.m. Byrne testified that as defendant was being led to a second-floor interview room, defendant stated, “I'll tell you everything.” Dignan told defendant that he would be questioned later. Defendant was handcuffed to a ring on the wall in the interview room. At approximately 8 a.m., after Dignan advised defendant of his Miranda rights, Dignan, Dioguardi and Byrne spoke to defendant for 20 to 30 minutes, during which time defendant gave a statement. The officers denied striking defendant, threatening him, or abusing him in any manner.

¶ 6 At 10 a.m., Dignan called the Felony Review Unit of the Cook County State's Attorney's office and requested an assistant State's Attorney. Assistant State's Attorney Kenneth McCurry arrived at Area 2 at 10:30 a.m. and spoke with the three officers. At approximately 12:50 p.m., McCurry, accompanied by Dioguardi and Dignan, had a conversation with defendant Before speaking with defendant, McCurry advised defendant of his Miranda rights. Defendant denied involvement in the crimes, indicating that he never went upstairs where the assault of K.B. took place. At approximately 1:35 p.m., at defendant's request, McCurry, Dioguardi and Dignan again spoke to defendant, who said he wanted to tell the truth. According to McCurry, defendant stated that he did go upstairs when K.B. was at the house. There, he saw a number of men having sexual intercourse with her. Defendant also stated that he saw Rodney Benson burn K.B. with an iron, and that he took the iron from Benson and dropped it on K.B.'s thigh. McCurry did not observe any injuries to defendant's face and did not notice anything unusual about defendant's walk. Defendant did not complain that he had been struck by police.

¶ 7 Defendant testified at the suppression hearing that, after his arrest, he was taken to Area 2 Headquarters and placed in a second-floor room, where he was handcuffed to a ring on the wall. Sergeant Byrne and Detective Dignan questioned him about what had happened at his house earlier that day. Defendant gave a statement but did not implicate himself. According to defendant, Dignan freed him from the wall ring and told him that he (Dignan) “was fixing to do some police brutality.” Defendant testified that he was then taken to a room on a lower floor “that had bars in it, and what appeared to be cells.” Upon questioning by Byrne, defendant repeated what he had told Byrne and Dignan upstairs. Byrne told defendant he was lying and hit him in the forehead with a flashlight that was 15 to 16 inches long. Dignan then struck defendant across his right thigh with a piece of rubber, approximately 12 to 13 inches long, which was taped on both ends. Byrne and Dignan continued to question defendant, striking him at random on his arms and thighs. Defendant testified: “Sergeant Byrne told me that we were about to return back upstairs; if he found out I was lying, I could expect the same thing.”

¶ 8 Defendant further testified that sometime after returning upstairs, Dignan and Byrne accused defendant of lying, stating that Benson (who was also being questioned at Area 2) told them that defendant had burned K.B. Defendant testified that Byrne and Dignan took him back downstairs, where Dignan struck him with a piece of rubber across his left thigh and his left arm, and Byrne repeatedly struck him with a flashlight on his right arm and once in his chest. According to defendant:

“As I tried to move my arm from Sergeant Byrne, Sergeant Byrne told me this time to stand up. I stood up. He grabbed my hands and turned me around and put my hands up over my head like this and my back was facing them, and my hands were up to the bars, and at this time Sergeant Byrne started kicking my legs apart and he told me he was going to let me see how it feels to be mistreated.

At this time he hit me between my legs in my groin with the flashlight. He hit me once, then hit me again, and this time I was, you know, fell, like I was trying to fold up to keep him from hitting me again.

At this time both of them grabbed me, unfolded me, stood me back up, and at this time Detective Dignan was hitting me between the legs in the groin with a piece of rubber.

* * *

Detective Dignan asked me would I, you know, when I go back upstairs, would I relate this to somebody—to an attorney that was investigating the case; and I told him I would relate to the attorney exactly what I had related to them earlier.”

Defendant testified that after he was taken back upstairs, he had a 20–minute conversation with McCurry, at which Dioguardi and Dignan were present. Defendant stated that McCurry did not advise him of his constitutional right to an attorney or to remain silent, and that he only spoke to McCurry because he was afraid of Dignan and Byrne. Defendant gave McCurry the same statement he had given to police when he was first brought to Area 2. McCurry, Dioguardi and Dignan returned later, but defendant told McCurry that he had nothing else to say.

¶ 9 Chicago Police Lieutenant John Crane testified that Area 2 headquarters was formerly the Burnside police district and that the building contained two abandoned jail cells adjacent to the garage on the first floor. Although the cell doors had been removed, the rest of the bars comprising the lockup remained. The lockup area, which was used for storage, could be accessed by going down the stairs from the second floor, then proceeding first through a wooden door, which was unlocked, and then a steel door, which was locked. Lieutenant Crane testified that the key to the metal door was kept behind the front desk on the first floor, which itself was behind a locked door.2

¶ 10 Defendant also presented medical testimony at his suppression hearing. Karem Ali Abdal–Aziz testified that he was a paramedic responsible for giving new inmates at the Cook County jail complete physical examinations and that he examined defendant on September 10, 1982. According to Abdal–Aziz's written report, defendant advised him of several injuries that occurred the day before. Defendant reported an injury to the left side of his head, his groin, right and left biceps, left shoulder, right hand, and his sternum, all from blunt trauma. Defendant also reported an injury to his thighs or kneecaps. Although Abdal–Aziz had no specific recollection of defendant's examination, he testified that inmates are required to remove their shirts for the examination and that he would have observed the injuries on the upper part of defendant's body. He would not have observed the leg and groin injuries that defendant reported.

¶ 11 Dr. Stanley Harper, a physician with Cermak Health Services, testified that he examined defendant on September 15, 1982. According to the doctor's examination notes, defendant reported that he had been beaten across his back, hands and legs with a flashlight and billy club by Chicago police one week earlier. He complained of pain in the groin, blood in his urine 24 to 48 hours after the beating, and burning...

To continue reading

Request your trial
71 cases
  • People v. Franklin
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 30, 2020
    ...––– Ill.Dec. ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––.¶ 73 For these reasons, we reverse and remand for second-stage postconviction proceedings. People v. Wrice , 2012 IL 111860, ¶ 90, 357 Ill.Dec. 33, 962 N.E.2d 934 ("reversing the trial court's order denying leave to file his second successive postconvictio......
  • People v. Love
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 19, 2013
    ...for his failure to bring the claim in his initial postconviction proceedings as well as “ prejudice” resulting therefrom. People v. Wrice, 2012 IL 111860, ¶ 48, 357 Ill.Dec. 33, 962 N.E.2d 934. A petitioner “shows cause by identifying an objective factor that impeded his ability to raise a ......
  • People v. Hughes
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 18, 2013
    ...finds, “closely balanced.” Thus, even if the admission of Hughes' confession was error, it was clearly harmless error. See People v. Wrice, 2012 IL 111860, ¶ 71, 357 Ill.Dec. 33, 962 N.E.2d 934 (recognizing that under Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (199......
  • People v. Jackson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 30, 2016
    ...successive petition, the initial issue before the trial court is whether it "should be docketed for second-stage proceedings"); People v. Wrice, 2012 IL 111860, ¶ 90, 357 Ill.Dec. 33, 962 N.E.2d 934 ("reversing the trial court's order denying leave to file his second successive postconvicti......
  • 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