Williams v. Galloway

• Decision Date: 26 December 2019
• Docket Number: Case No. 17-cv-1466
• Parties: HALIK WILLIAMS (K64712), Petitioner, v. VICTOR GALLOWAY, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

HALIK WILLIAMS (K64712), Petitioner, v. VICTOR GALLOWAY, Respondent.

Case No. 17-cv-1466

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

December 26, 2019

Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

PetitionerHalik Williams, a prisoner incarcerated at the Danville Correctional Center, brings this pro se habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2002 murder conviction from the Circuit Court of Cook County.Petitioner claims that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him of first degree murder on the theory of accountability; (2) his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that none of the persons for whom he was accountable had the requisite mental state to commit murder; and (3) new evidence demonstrates that he is actually innocent of first degree murder.The Court denies the petition and declines to issue a certificate of appealability.Civil case terminated.

I.Background

The following facts are drawn from the state court record, which Respondent has submitted in accordance with Rule 5(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254Cases.See [17].The state court findings of fact are presumed correct, and Petitioner has the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.Brumfield v. Cain, 135 S. Ct. 2269, 2282 n.8(2015)(citing28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)).

During an altercation between two rival gangs on an elevated train platform ("L") in Chicago, Anthony King("King") fell onto the third rail of the train tracks and was electrocuted.See[17-1]at 1.Petitioner and two of his fellow gang members, Warren Hardy("Hardy") and David Sapp("Sapp"), were charged with King's murder in the Circuit Court of Cook County.Id.

The following evidence was presented by the State at the co-defendants' simultaneous but severed bench trials.[17-1]at 1.¹Around 1:40 a.m. on September 5, 1999, King was with fellow Vice Lords Jonathan Lejman("Lejman," a/k/a "White C"), Dennis Myles("Myles"), and Dwayne Johnson("Johnson").Lejman testified that he, King, Myles, and Johnson were celebrating King's birthday and recent release from prison.In their search for a party, the group ended up at the Morse L stop and became aware that they were in Gangster Disciples' territory.Petitioner was driving around the area with two Gangster Disciple friends, Sapp and Lawrence Brooks("Brooks"), and noticed the Vice Lords on the L platform.Petitioner told Brooks to park his car in front of the L station and wait.As Petitioner and Sapp exited the car, Petitioner was holding a wooden cane.Petitioner told Brooks that they were going up to the L tracks to "kick White C's and the other Vice Lords' ass."Id. at 2.

Once they reached the platform, Petitioner and Sapp approached King, Lejman, and Myles.Sapp stated that they were "hook killers," meaning Vice Lord killers.[17-1]at 2.Petitioner approached Lejman and asked if he was White C. Lejman responded that "White C was dead" and he was not looking for trouble.Id.As Petitioner, Sapp, and Lejman continued their verbal exchange, Petitioner began to fidget while holding his cane with both hands.Lejman steppedcloser to Petitioner in an effort to "cut the space" between the two in case Petitioner decided to swing the cane.Id. at 3.Petitioner told Lejman to "back off," and he did.Petitioner lifted his cane again and once again Lejman stepped closer.Petitioner again told him to back off and Lejman backed away while stating, "baby, we ain't on that."Id.Petitioner replied, "I told your bitch ass I ain't your baby" and swung his cane at Lejman.Id.Lejman, trying to escape, ran south on the platform, with Petitioner pursuing him.Id.

While this was occurring, two other members of the Gangster Disciples, Hardy and Jason Moody("Moody"), were walking up the steps to the L tracks.At first, Myles and King followed Lejman and Petitioner.Once they saw that Lejman was getting away, they turned and ran north on the platform.When they turned around, Hardy and Moody had reached the L platform.When Hardy emerged from the stairs, Sapp yelled, "grab him, get him."[17-1]at 3.In response, Hardy grabbed King and they both fell onto the L tracks and began fighting.According to Moody's testimony, Hardy struck and pushed King into the tracks.Id.According to Hardy, he kept pushing King down to avoid getting electrocuted himself.Id.According to Detective Steve Schorsch, King was electrocuted as a result of Hardy pushing him onto the track.Id.

Petitioner then walked over to King and struck him on the head five times with his cane.The cane broke in half after the fifth strike.Petitioner picked up the bottom part of the cane and yelled to Moody, "wait a minute, I'm going with you."[17-1]at 4.Petitioner, Sapp, and Hardy then left the L station.Later, the police found the broken handle of Petitioner's cane by King's head.

The medical examiner testified that King died as a result of electrocution.The medical examiner also noted a number of bruises and contusions on King's temporal area, forehead, nose,lip, and left knee.The medical examiner stated that the two lacerations on King's head were inflicted prior or immediately prior to his death.

The trial judge found Petitioner accountable for the murder of King based on an accountability theory.[17-1]at 4;see also720 ILCS 5/5-2(c).Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to 30 years in prison.[17-1]at 4.

Petitioner filed a direct appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, which affirmed his conviction.Petitioner next filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court("PLA"), which was denied.Petitioner then filed a petition for postconviction relief in the Cook County Circuit Court.His petition was denied and he appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief.SeePeople v. Williams, 64 N.E.3d 1086(Ill. App.2016).Petitioner then filed this pro se habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

II.Substantial Evidence

In his first two claims, Petitioner raises Jackson challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for first degree murder under an accountability theory.SeeJackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319(1987)."Fourteenth Amendment due process requires that the state must present sufficient evidence to prove each element of an alleged crime."Maier v. Smith, 912 F.3d 1064, 1074(7th Cir.2019).State law defines the substantive elements of the alleged crime, id., while Supreme Court precedent sets the standard for determining whether the evidence is sufficient: "'whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyonda reasonable doubt.'"Saxon v. Lashbrook, 873 F.3d 982, 987-88(7th Cir.2017)(quotingJackson, 443 U.S. at 319).

"[H]abeas reviews of Jackson claims are subject to two levels of judicial deference creating a high bar: first, the state appellate court determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found the evidence sufficient; second, a federal court may only overturn the appellate court's finding of sufficient evidence if it was objectively unreasonable."Saxon, 873 F.3d at 988."In other words, it must be 'something like lying well outside the boundaries of permissible differences of opinion.'"Rodriguez v. Gossett, 842 F.3d 531, 538(7th Cir.2016)(quotingJackson v. Frank, 348 F.3d 658, 662(7th Cir.2003)).This standard is "difficult to meet" and "highly deferential."Saxon, 873 F.3d at 988(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).The Court applies this standard to the Illinois Appellate Court's decision denying Petitioner's petition for postconviction relief, seePeople v. Williams, 64 N.E.3d 1086(Ill. App.2016), because "that was the last state court to adjudicate [Petitioner]'s sufficiency of the evidence claim[s]."Saxon, 873 F.3d at 987;see alsoMakiel v. Butler, 782 F.3d 882, 896(7th Cir.2015)("The operative decision under review is that of the last state court to address a given claim on the merits.").

Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder under an accountability theory.Under Illinois law, a person commits first degree murder when, in performing the acts which cause a victim's death, "he knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm" to the victim.720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2).A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another when "either before or during the commission of an offense, and with the intent to promote or facilitate that commission, he or she solicits, aids, abets, agrees, or attempts to aid that other person in the planning or commission of the offense."720 ILCS 5/5-2(c)."A defendant may be deemedaccountable for acts performed by another if defendant shared the criminal intent of the principal, or if there was a common criminal plan or purpose."People v. Taylor, 646 N.E.2d 567, 571(Ill.1995).A common criminal plan or purpose "can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the perpetration of the unlawful conduct," including "[p]roof that defendant was present during the perpetration of the offense, that he maintained a close affiliation with his companions after the commission of the crime, and that he failed to report the crime," as well as "[d]efendant's flight from the scene" and "[e]vidence that defendant voluntarily attached himself to a group bent on illegal acts with knowledge of its design."Id.

Claim One: Whether the Evidence Presented at Trial Was Sufficient to Prove Petitioner Guilty of First Degree Murder Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

In his first substantial evidence challenge, Petitioner argues that he should not have been convicted because "there exists absolutely no evidence that the Petitioner conspired with his codefendants with...