NOTICE 2021 IL App (4th) 200237-U FILED This Order was filed under December 28, 2021 Supreme Court Rule 23 and Carla Bender NO. 4-20-0237 is not precedent except in the 4th District Appellate limited circumstances Court, IL IN THE APPELLATE COURT allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from Respondent-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Champaign County DONTRELL L. THOMPSON, ) No. 11CF672 Petitioner-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Heidi N. Ladd, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Knecht and Justice Harris concurred in the judgment.
ORDER ¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court properly denied petitioner’s motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition where he failed to (1) raise a colorable claim of actual innocence and (2) show cause and prejudice for his failure to raise his sentencing claim in his initial postconviction petition.
¶2 Petitioner, Dontrell L. Thompson, appeals from the Champaign County circuit
court’s judgment denying him leave to file a successive petition for relief under the
Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Postconviction Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 to 122-7 (West 2018)). On
appeal, petitioner argues the trial court erroneously denied his motion for leave to file a
successive petition because he demonstrated a colorable claim he is actually innocent based on
newly discovered evidence. Petitioner additionally argues he demonstrated cause and prejudice for his failure to challenge his sentence as unconstitutionally excessive based on his youth and
intellectual disabilities. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On May 2, 2011, the State charged petitioner by information with (1) one count of
attempted first degree murder, a Class X felony (720 ILCS 5/8-4, 9-1(a)(1) (West 2010)) (count
I), in that, while armed with a handgun and with the intent to kill Tony Brock, he personally
discharged that handgun, proximately causing great bodily harm to Brock and (2) one count of
aggravated battery with a firearm, a Class X felony (id. § 12- 4.2(a)(1)) (count II), in that he
knowingly and by means of the discharge of a firearm caused injury to Brock in that he shot
Brock with a handgun.
¶5 A. Jury Trial
¶6 Petitioner’s case proceeded to a jury trial over four days in February and March
2012. This court previously discussed the evidence presented at petitioner’s trial as follows:
“Tyeeste Slaughter testified, on May 1, 2011, she was driving toward the
Market Place Mall when a purple Chrysler Pacifica nearly hit her vehicle.
Concerned about such erratic driving, Slaughter called the police. While on the
phone with police, Slaughter followed the Pacifica to obtain the license plate
information. The Pacifica parked in the mall parking lot, at which time Slaughter
observed three men get out of the vehicle. One of the men—wearing a
black-hooded sweatshirt—concealed a handgun on his person. Panicked that the
Pacifica’s occupants intended to confront her over following them, Slaughter
drove away.
-2- Based on Slaughter’s call to police, mall security and the Champaign
Police Department were on alert for both the Pacifica and the man in possession
of the handgun. When mall security officer Roman Gordon received the report, he
headed from his position in the food court toward the parking lot. Gordon saw
three black males—later identified as Frank Day, [petitioner], and Brock—exiting
the mall. Day was ahead of the other two males and walking quickly away.
[Petitioner], who was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt, grabbed Brock, who
was wearing a white shirt. Gordon observed [petitioner] and Brock scuffle, and
then Brock attempted to run away. According to Gordon, [petitioner] pulled a
handgun from his pocket and fired at Brock. Once Brock was on the ground,
Gordon observed [petitioner] (1) hit Brock with the handgun and (2) stand over
Brock and fire his gun.
Scott Carter, another mall security officer, was in the parking lot when he
heard a gunshot. When he turned toward the sound, he observed [petitioner] fire
his gun at Brock while Brock was attempting to flee.
Similarly, Robert King, a mall security officer, observed [petitioner] fire
his weapon at Brock twice. After a scuffle during which [petitioner] hit Brock
with the gun, King observed [petitioner] fire at Brock from close range.
Numerous officers from the Champaign police department were also on
the scene when gunshots were fired, as they were investigating the Pacifica
parked in the mall parking lot. Officers John McAllister, Shane Standifer, and
Thomas Petrelli heard gunshots, and ran toward the commotion. Lieutenant David
Shaffer was off duty and visiting the mall with his family when he heard the
-3- shots. Officers McAllister, Standifer, and Shaffer observed [petitioner] standing
over Brock, raising a gun toward Brock’s head. Officer Petrelli testified he saw
[petitioner] fire at Brock prior to Brock falling to the ground. As [petitioner]
raised his gun to fire again at Brock, Officers McAllister and Standifer fired their
weapons, hitting [petitioner], who fell to the ground and dropped the gun. The gun
was recovered, and no other weapons were found at the scene.
Frank Day testified [petitioner] and Marquis Thompson were his cousins.
According to Day, Marquis asked Day and [petitioner] to help him find Brock,
with whom Marquis had been in an altercation the night before. The three men
drove around in the Pacifica until they found Brock, at which time they followed
him to the mall. The men went into the mall and later observed Brock walking
toward the parking lot from the food court. According to Day, Brock attempted to
hit him, so Day ran. Day then heard shots fired behind him. Day admitted he did
not initially tell police the same story upon his arrest. Moreover, he was offered
probation in a pending felony case if he testified against [petitioner].” People v.
Thompson, 2018 IL App (4th) 150597-U, ¶¶ 7-12.
Petitioner did not testify, and at the conclusion of trial, the jury found him guilty of both
attempted first degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm. The trial court sentenced
petitioner to 55 years in prison, and this court affirmed his sentence on direct appeal. People v.
Thompson, 2013 IL App (4th) 120508-U, ¶ 1.
¶7 B. Postconviction Proceedings
¶8 In May 2014, petitioner pro se filed a postconviction petition arguing he was
denied his constitutional rights to a fair trial and effective assistance of trial counsel. In
-4- September 2014, petitioner pro se filed a second postconviction petition alleging he was also
actually innocent. After advancing the petition to second-stage proceedings and appointing
counsel for petitioner, who filed an amended petition, the trial court granted the State’s motion to
dismiss. On appeal, this court allowed the Office of the State Appellate Defender’s (OSAD)
motion to withdraw as counsel for petitioner and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Thompson,
2018 IL App (4th) 150597-U, ¶ 1.
¶9 In October 2019, petitioner pro se filed a motion for leave to file a successive
postconviction petition. Petitioner later filed a motion requesting time to amend his prior motion,
which the trial court allowed. In his amended motion, petitioner argued the trial court should
allow him leave to file a successive postconviction petition because (1) he was actually innocent
based on newly discovered evidence and (2) new case law, which was not available to him at the
time he filed his initial postconviction petition, supported vacating his de facto life sentence
based on the trial court’s failure to adequately consider his youth and intellectual disabilities at
sentencing.
¶ 10 In support of his motion, petitioner attached to his proposed petition a notarized,
unsworn statement from Frank Day. In Day’s unverified statement, dated February 22, 2016,
Day claims he lied at trial and only testified against petitioner because he was “under duress” and
“intimidation” from the prosecutor, who allegedly threatened Day with 30 years in prison if he
did not testify. Day claimed petitioner was not the shooter and did not have a gun when Day saw
him standing over Brock’s body. Petitioner additionally attached the following: (1) a document
from Milwaukee Public Schools stating petitioner’s dosage for Prozac, an antidepressant
medication; (2) records from the Milwaukee County Behavioral Health Division containing
petitioner’s oppositional defiance disorder diagnosis; and (3) a 2017 Menard Correctional Center
-5- mental health treatment plan listing petitioner’s schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder,
depression, and anxiety diagnoses.
¶ 11 On May 5, 2020, the trial court entered a written order denying the motion,
concluding that “[e]ven if Day testified now to the matters set forth in his 2016 statement,
[petitioner] has failed to demonstrate that it would be likely to have changed the outcome on
retrial,” especially “[i]n light of the overwhelming evidence of [his] guilt.” The court further
found petitioner failed to establish cause and prejudice with respect to his sentencing claim
because the records he attached “d[id] not constitute newly discovered evidence,” and “[n]one of
the information contained in any of those documents constitutes evidence which would have
changed the court’s sentencing determination at the time, or if presented at a new sentencing
hearing, would affect the sentence now.”
¶ 12 This appeal followed.
¶ 13 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 14 On appeal, petitioner argues the trial court erroneously denied his motion for
leave to file a successive petition because he: (1) presented a colorable claim he is actually
innocent and (2) demonstrated cause and prejudice for his failure to challenge his sentence as
unconstitutional. The State responds that petitioner failed to (1) raise a colorable claim he is
actually innocent because he did not present any newly discovered evidence that would probably
change the outcome of his trial and (2) demonstrate cause and prejudice. We affirm.
¶ 15 A. Postconviction Proceedings Generally
¶ 16 The Postconviction Act provides a means for a criminal defendant to assert that,
in the proceedings resulting in his conviction, there was a substantial denial of his constitutional
rights. People v. Evans, 2013 IL 113471, 989 N.E.2d 1096. The Postconviction Act contemplates
-6- the filing of only one postconviction petition. People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444, 456, 793
N.E.2d 609, 619 (2002). Leave of court must be obtained prior to pursuing a successive petition
under the Postconviction Act. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2018).
¶ 17 To obtain leave to file a successive postconviction petition, the petitioner must
either (1) show cause and prejudice for the failure to raise a claim in his or her earlier petition, or
(2) set forth a colorable claim of actual innocence. People v. Edwards, 2012 IL 111711, ¶¶ 22-
24, 969 N.E.2d 829; see also 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2012) (setting forth the
cause-and-prejudice test). “A request to file a successive petition based on actual innocence is
reviewed under a higher standard than that applicable to the first stage for an initial petition,
which only requires that the petition is not frivolous or patently without merit.” People v.
Robinson, 2020 IL 123849, ¶ 43. At this stage, all well-pleaded allegations in the proposed
petition and its supporting documentation are taken as true if not positively rebutted by the
record. Id. ¶ 45. Accordingly, the trial court is precluded from making factual or credibility
determinations to determine the legal sufficiency of the petition. Id.
¶ 18 We review de novo the trial court’s denial of a petitioner’s motion for leave to file
a successive petition for postconviction relief. People v. Green, 2012 IL App (4th) 101034, ¶ 30,
970 N.E.2d 101.
¶ 19 B. Actual Innocence
¶ 20 On appeal, petitioner first argues the trial court erroneously dismissed his motion
to file a successive petition because he raised a colorable claim of actual innocence based on the
“newly discovered” statement from Frank Day. We disagree.
¶ 21 1. Applicable Law
-7- ¶ 22 Our supreme court recently set forth the law regarding claims of actual innocence
as follows:
“To establish a claim of actual innocence, the supporting evidence must be
(1) newly discovered, (2) material and not cumulative, and (3) of such conclusive
character that it would probably change the result on retrial. [Citations.] Newly
discovered evidence is evidence that was discovered after trial and that the
petitioner could not have discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence.
[Citation.] Evidence is material if it is relevant and probative of the petitioner's
innocence. [Citation.] Noncumulative evidence adds to the information that the
fact finder heard at trial. [Citations.] Lastly, the conclusive character element
refers to evidence that, when considered along with the trial evidence, would
probably lead to a different result. [Citations.] The conclusive character of the
new evidence is the most important element of an actual innocence claim.
[Citation.]
Ultimately, the question is whether the evidence supporting the
postconviction petition places the trial evidence in a different light and
undermines the court's confidence in the judgment of guilt. [Citation.] The new
evidence need not be entirely dispositive to be likely to alter the result on retrial.
[Citations.] Probability, rather than certainty, is the key in considering whether the
fact finder would reach a different result after considering the prior evidence
along with the new evidence. [Citation.]” Robinson, 2020 IL 123849, ¶¶ 47-48.
¶ 23 Petitioner argues this case is akin to Robinson. In that case, the defendant was
convicted of first degree murder along with two codefendants. Id. ¶¶ 15-17. At trial, the State
-8- presented evidence from two witnesses who, while stopped at an intersection facing a viaduct,
observed two people “standing over a person who was sitting on the ground against a car when a
third person exited the vehicle and shot the person on the ground.” Id. ¶ 8. The State also
presented a lengthy signed confession from the defendant, as well as testimony from others to
whom defendant had allegedly confessed, including a man named Leonard Tucker. Id. ¶¶ 9-10,
13. No eyewitnesses identified the defendant as the shooter, and the State did not present any
physical or forensic evidence linking the defendant to the crime. Id. ¶ 16. After his conviction
was affirmed on direct appeal, the defendant filed an initial postconviction petition, which was
dismissed at the second stage of proceedings. Id. ¶ 19-20.
¶ 24 The defendant later filed a motion for leave to file a successive postconviction
petition, arguing he was actually innocent. Id. ¶ 21. The defendant claimed he was not involved
in the murder but rather took the fall for fellow gang member Tucker. Id. ¶ 22. In support of his
petition, the defendant attached affidavits from multiple witnesses who observed Tucker in the
vicinity of the murder on the night in question, including one who averred he personally
observed Tucker exit a car on the viaduct with two other men while holding an “A.K.” and
another who averred Tucker confessed to the killing. Id. ¶¶ 25, 28. The circuit court denied the
motion, and the appellate court affirmed. Id. ¶¶ 30, 31.
¶ 25 The supreme court reversed and remanded for second-stage postconviction
proceedings, concluding the defendant’s supporting documentation was sufficient to state an
arguable claim of actual innocence. Id. ¶ 83. The supreme court noted the appellate court
erroneously concluded “the evidence in the supporting affidavits was positively rebutted simply
because it was contradicted by the evidence presented at trial.” Id. ¶ 60. The court clarified that
“the well-pleaded allegations in the petition and supporting documents will be accepted as true
-9- unless it is affirmatively demonstrated by the record that a trier of fact could never accept their
veracity.” Id. In concluding the defendant presented an arguable claim of innocence, the court
relied on the facts “no physical or forensic evidence linked [him] to the crimes” and no
eyewitnesses identified him “as being involved or even present at the time of the relevant
events.” Id. ¶ 82. Rather, the only evidence supporting the defendant’s guilt was his own
confession and testimony that he had confessed to others. Id.
¶ 26 2. This Case
¶ 27 Here, petitioner has failed to raise a colorable claim of actual innocence
because—even assuming Day’s unsworn statement was newly discovered, material, and
noncumulative—it was not of such a conclusive character that it would probably change the
result on retrial. Unlike Robinson, the record here shows no trier of fact considering the
allegations in the petition and Day’s statement—namely, that an unknown Black male, rather
than petitioner, shot Brock, along with the trial evidence, could ever accept the truth of Day’s
statement. First, petitioner and Day were both apprehended by Champaign police officers
immediately following the shooting. The record showed only three Black males were present at
the scene: Day, Brock, and petitioner. No fourth person—i.e., the unknown Black male Day
claims shot Brock—was ever observed either at the scene or leaving the scene. Any claim a
fourth, unidentified person was responsible for the shooting is positively rebutted by the record.
Additionally, it is undisputed a gun was recovered next to petitioner following the shooting.
Further distinguishing this case from Robinson, the State presented multiple eyewitnesses who
personally observed petitioner shoot Brock, as well as physical evidence, i.e., the gun. Day’s
recantation testimony, “when considered along with the trial evidence,” does not “place[ ] the
trial evidence in a different light.” Id. ¶¶ 47-48. Given the volume of eyewitness and physical
- 10 - evidence favoring petitioner’s guilt, Day’s statement does nothing to undermine confidence in
the judgment of guilt. Thus, it is not probable that no reasonable juror would have convicted
petitioner in the light of Day’s statement recanting his prior trial testimony.
¶ 28 C. Excessive Sentence
¶ 29 Petitioner additionally argues the trial court erroneously denied his motion for
leave to file a successive postconviction petition because he demonstrated cause and prejudice
for his failure to raise his excessive sentence claim in his initial petition. Specifically,
petitioner—who was 22 at the time of the offense in this case—argues his sentence was
unconstitutional under the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const.
1970, art. 1, § 11) because his intellectual disability rendered him the functional equivalent of a
juvenile.
¶ 30 1. Forfeiture
¶ 31 The State first argues this court should not address petitioner’s claim because it
was not raised in his motion or in the attached proposed petition and is therefore forfeited. See
People v. Jones, 213 Ill. 2d 498, 505, 821 N.E.2d 1093, 1097 (2004) (“[T]his court has generally
held that a claim not raised in a petition cannot be argued for the first time on appeal.”).
Specifically, the State argues petitioner never alleged his age or effective age (due to intellectual
disability) precluded a de facto life sentence, but rather only alleged his mental condition in and
of itself precluded a de facto life sentence.
¶ 32 We conclude that petitioner sufficiently raised the issue of the constitutionality of
his sentence based on both his age and intellectual disability. In his proposed petition, petitioner
compared the facts of his case to (1) People v. Coty, 2018 IL App (1st) 162383, ¶ 68, 110 N.E.3d
1105, overruled by People v. Coty, 2020 IL 123972, which held adult criminal defendants with
- 11 - intellectual disabilities must be treated similarly to minors for purposes of sentencing, and
(2) People v. Reyes, 2016 IL 119271, 63 N.E.3d 884, which held that a juvenile criminal
defendant’s consecutive mandatory minimum sentences were unconstitutional under Miller v.
Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2011) (holding a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without
the possibility of parole for juvenile defendants violates the eighth amendment to the United
States Constitution). Petitioner’s reliance on these cases shows his intention to challenge his
sentence based on both his youth and his intellectual disability, and therefore we address
petitioner’s argument for purposes of determining whether he demonstrated cause and prejudice
for his failure to raise the claim in his initial petition.
¶ 33 2. Cause and Prejudice
¶ 34 As stated supra, with regard to claims not involving actual innocence, leave to file
a successive postconviction petition will be granted when the petitioner demonstrates both cause
for his failure to raise the issue in a prior postconviction petition and prejudice resulting from
that failure. People v. Davis, 2014 IL 115595, ¶ 14, 6 N.E.3d 709; 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West
2012). “Cause” is established when the petitioner shows some objective factor impeded his
ability to raise the claim in the original postconviction proceedings. People v. Tenner, 206 Ill. 2d
381, 393, 794 N.E.2d 238, 246 (2002). “Prejudice” is established when the petitioner shows the
claimed error so infected his trial that the resulting conviction violated due process. Id.
¶ 35 Petitioner argues he demonstrated cause for failing to raise his proportionate
penalties cause claim in his initial postconviction petition because he “could not have raised
claims based on [Reyes and Coty] at the time of his first postconviction petition.” We disagree.
¶ 36 While this matter was pending before this court, the Illinois Supreme Court
released its opinion in People v. Dorsey, 2021 IL 123010. In that case, the defendant appealed
- 12 - from the First District’s judgment affirming the denial of the defendant’s motion for leave to file
a successive postconviction petition. Id. ¶ 1. As relevant to this case, the defendant argued that
his aggregate sentence of 76 years in prison for crimes committed when he was 14 years old
violated the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution as applied to him. Id. ¶¶ 4,
19, 68. The supreme court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate cause for his failure to
raise this argument in his initial postconviction petition as required by section 122-1(f) of the
Postconviction Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2016)). In reaching this conclusion, the supreme
court held that not only was the defendant’s claim both (1) forfeited and (2) barred by the
doctrine of res judicata, but also, “Miller’s announcement of a new substantive rule under the
eighth amendment does not provide cause for a defendant to raise a claim under the
proportionate penalties clause.” Id. ¶¶ 70, 74. The court reasoned as follows:
“As defendant acknowledges, Illinois courts have long recognized the
differences between persons of mature age and those who are minors for purposes
of sentencing. Thus, Miller’s unavailability prior to 2012 at best deprived
defendant of ‘some helpful support’ for his state constitutional law claim, which
is insufficient to establish ‘cause.’ ” Id. ¶ 74 (quoting People v. LaPointe, 2018 IL
App (2d) 160903, ¶ 59, 127 N.E.3d 131).
¶ 37 We conclude petitioner has failed to demonstrate cause for his failure to raise his
proportionate penalties clause claim under our supreme court’s decision in Dorsey. Under
Dorsey, the unavailability of Miller and subsequent Illinois case law interpreting Miller—such as
Reyes and Coty, upon which petitioner relies—does not constitute cause for a petitioner’s failure
to raise a proportionate penalties clause claim in his initial postconviction proceeding. Moreover,
all of the information and documents petitioner claims support his claim were available to
- 13 - petitioner at the time of sentencing. In fact, much of the information regarding his diagnoses and
mental health conditions was provided in detail in the presentence investigation report, which the
trial court considered at sentencing. Petitioner has not identified any objective factor that
impeded him from raising his claim in a prior proceeding. Because petitioner cannot demonstrate
cause, we need not address the issue of prejudice. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied
petitioner’s motion for leave to file a successive petition, and we affirm the judgment.
¶ 38 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 39 For the reasons stated, consistent with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(b) (eff. Jan.
1, 2021), we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 40 Affirmed.
- 14 -