Title: People v. Dupree (Amended Opinion)

State: illinois

Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court

Document:

2018 IL 122307 
IN THE  
SUPREME COURT  
OF  
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS  
(Docket No. 122307) 
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. 
TORRENCE D. DUPREE, Appellant. 
Opinion filed November 1, 2018.—Modified Upon Denial of Rehearing 
February 28, 2019. 
JUSTICE BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.  
Chief Justice Karmeier and Justices Garman, Theis, and Neville concurred in  
the judgment and opinion. 
Justice Thomas specially concurred, with opinion, joined by Justice Kilbride. 
Justice Kilbride dissented upon denial of rehearing, without opinion. 
OPINION 
¶ 1 
After a Lake County jury trial, defendant Torrence Dupree was convicted of 
two counts of armed robbery and two counts of aggravated robbery. His 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
convictions were upheld on direct appeal. 2012 IL App (2d) 101247-U. 
Subsequently, defendant filed a postconviction petition. The petition advanced to 
the second stage, at which time defendant filed a third-amended petition raising 
several claims, including a claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to 
call an “exculpatory witness” to testify at trial. The circuit court dismissed the 
petition on the State’s motion, finding that defendant failed to make a substantial 
showing that his trial counsel was ineffective. 
¶ 2 
On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of the 
postconviction petition in an unpublished order. 2017 IL App (2d) 141013-U. 
Unlike the circuit court, however, the appellate court did not consider the 
ineffective assistance claim on its merits but held that the postconviction petition 
was properly dismissed, as a matter of law, solely because defendant failed to 
attach to his petition an affidavit from the proposed witness. 
¶ 3 
We granted defendant’s petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. Mar. 
15, 2016). For the reasons that follow, we now hold that, under the facts of this 
case, defendant’s failure to provide an affidavit was not, by itself, fatal to his claim 
of ineffective assistance of counsel. Nonetheless, we affirm the circuit court’s 
dismissal of defendant’s postconviction petition because we, like the circuit court, 
find that defendant failed to make a substantial showing that his trial counsel was 
ineffective. 
¶ 4 
BACKGROUND 
¶ 5 
Defendant Torrence Dupree (also known as Teko) was charged with two counts 
of armed robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2) (West 2010)) and two counts of 
aggravated robbery (id. § 18-5 (now codified at 720 ILCS 5/18-1(b)(1) (West 
2016))), in connection with the robbery of Matthew Morrison and Kiernan Collins 
on February 16, 2010, in Grayslake, Illinois. At a jury trial, evidence established 
that on the evening of February 16, 2010, Steven Nowell called Matthew Morrison 
to arrange for the purchase of some marijuana. Morrison, accompanied by a friend, 
Kiernan Collins, drove to the Grayslake Apartments complex to meet with Nowell. 
When Nowell met Morrison in the parking lot of the apartment complex, a man 
armed with a gun and wearing a black, hooded sweatshirt with the hood pulled up 
over his head pushed his way into the front passenger seat of Morrison’s car, 
- 2 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
demanded money from Morrison and Collins, and removed a backpack from the 
backseat of Morrison’s car before fleeing. Because the gunman wore a hooded 
sweatshirt, which covered much of his face, and because there was no physical 
evidence tying defendant to the robbery, the identification of defendant as the 
armed robber was the main issue at trial. 
¶ 6 
Steven Nowell was one of two identification witnesses presented by the State. 
He testified that on the afternoon of February 16, 2010, he had been with defendant 
and three other people—Cedric, “Blue,” and Kramer—at Kramer’s apartment 
located in the Grayslake Apartments complex. Later, Nowell, Kramer, and Blue 
left the apartment, picked up Nowell’s girlfriend, Kenyana Whiteside, and went to 
McDonald’s to purchase some food. Nowell testified that, when they returned from 
McDonald’s, he and Whiteside went to her apartment, which was also in the 
Grayslake Apartments complex. Nowell then made a phone call to Morrison to 
arrange for the purchase of some marijuana. 
¶ 7 
According to Nowell, after he called Morrison, defendant came to Whiteside’s 
apartment and asked to use her cell phone. Nowell claimed that, when defendant 
finished using Whiteside’s phone, defendant asked him if he was going to get some 
marijuana from Morrison. Nowell testified that he told defendant “no” because he 
didn’t want to share and because he “knew what [defendant] was capable of.” 
Nowell said defendant accompanied him when he left Whiteside’s apartment but he 
saw defendant walking away from the complex as he continued toward the parking 
lot to meet with Morrison. 
¶ 8 
Nowell testified that, when he saw Morrison’s car in the parking lot, he got in 
and noticed a man he did not know (later identified as Kiernan Collins) sitting in the 
rear passenger seat. Morrison then drove out of the parking lot. Shortly thereafter, 
Nowell stated, he got a call from Whiteside telling him he forgot his money, so he 
asked Morrison to go back. Morrison drove back to the parking lot, and Nowell got 
out. Nowell testified that, when he returned to Morrison’s car, a man wearing a 
hooded sweatshirt and brandishing a gun came up behind him. Nowell said the 
gunman pushed him into the passenger seat of Morrison’s car and then leaned into 
the car and asked, “Where’s the stuff?” The gunman then pointed the gun at him 
and ordered him to pat down Morrison and Collins and take their cell phones. 
- 3 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nowell admitted taking Morrison’s cell phone but said that Morrison and Collins 
both surrendered their money to the gunman before he could pat them down. 
¶ 9 
Nowell testified that the gunman pushed him out of the car and a struggle then 
ensued between Morrison and the gunman as Morrison attempted to start the car. 
The gunman reached into the backseat, took Morrison’s backpack, and then fled 
from the vehicle as Morrison started the car and drove off. Nowell claimed that, 
after the robbery, the gunman started to follow him back toward the apartment 
complex but then jumped into a van and took off. Nowell admitted that he kept 
Morrison’s cell phone and said that he later threw the phone away rather than return 
it to Morrison. 
¶ 10 
Nowell further testified that the next day, February 17, 2010, after learning that 
the police were looking for him, he turned himself in at the Grayslake Police 
Department. There he was questioned, intermittently, for approximately 2½ hours 
before he was arrested on charges of aggravated robbery and robbery in relation to 
this incident. At the police station, Nowell maintained that he was not involved in 
the robbery, had not set up Morrison to be robbed, and did not know who the 
gunman was. Later, however, when he learned that he was under arrest for his part 
in the robbery, he admitted to the police that defendant was the gunman. Nowell 
also told the jury that he later had accepted a plea deal whereby he pled guilty to 
reduced charges in exchange for his agreement to testify against defendant. 
¶ 11 
On cross-examination, Nowell reiterated that he initially told the police he 
could not identify the gunman and even said that defendant could not have been the 
gunman because he was too short. However, when he learned that he was being 
charged, he told the police—as he testified at trial—that, while he never saw the 
gunman’s face, he knew it was defendant because of his voice and the clothes he 
was wearing. Nowell also testified that between the evening of February 16, when 
the robbery took place, and February 17, when he turned himself in, defendant 
called him several times, threatening him not to reveal defendant’s identity. 
¶ 12 
The other identification witness was Kiernan Collins, who had been sitting in 
the backseat of Morrison’s car at the time of the robbery. Collins’s rendition of the 
robbery was similar to Nowell’s, except that he cast Nowell more as a willing 
participant. Collins testified that, when Nowell first entered Morrison’s car and 
they drove out of the parking lot, Nowell claimed he got a call from his girlfriend 
- 4 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
but Collins never heard the phone ring. Collins testified that they returned to the 
parking lot and Nowell got out but, almost immediately, Nowell came back to the 
car, followed closely by the gunman in the hooded sweatshirt. Also, Collins 
testified that, for much of the time during the robbery, Nowell simply stood outside 
Morrison’s car. The gunman pushed Nowell out of the way, kneeled on the 
passenger seat, took money from him and Morrison, and then took Morrison’s 
backpack before fleeing. 
¶ 13 
Collins admitted that he did not get a good look at the gunman because the 
robbery took place in the evening and it was dark. In addition, the gunman had a 
hooded sweatshirt pulled tightly around his head, which covered most of his face. 
Collins also testified that during the robbery, which only lasted a short time, he was 
mainly focused on the gun and was fearful of looking at the gunman directly. 
Nonetheless, Collins gave a description of the gunman to police and selected 
defendant’s photo out of a six-man photo array. Collins admitted on 
cross-examination that he described the gunman as being six feet to six feet, two 
inches tall and that defendant apparently is only about five feet, eight inches or five 
feet, nine inches tall. Also, Collins admitted that, when he selected defendant’s 
photo from the array, he told the police that, of the pictures in the array, defendant’s 
picture “most resembled the gunman.” Collins estimated that he was 70% sure that 
defendant was the gunman. 
¶ 14 
Lastly, Collins testified that on July 23, 2010, which was three days before trial 
was scheduled to begin, he received a collect phone call from the Lake County jail, 
where defendant was being held. When Collins learned the call was from 
“Torrence,” he did not accept the call. 
¶ 15 
No physical evidence was presented at trial. Although latent fingerprints were 
lifted from the exterior of Morrison’s vehicle, they were found either to be 
unsuitable for comparison or of such poor quality that comparison to defendant’s 
prints was inconclusive. However, the State offered into evidence two recordings 
of phone calls defendant made from jail to his cousin, Leon Hudson. In one call, 
defendant told Hudson to “put the word out on the street” that Nowell had been 
released on probation and that defendant wanted his “head on a platter.” 
¶ 16 
The State also called as a witness Nowell’s girlfriend, Kenyana Whiteside. She 
testified that on the evening of February 16, 2010, she received a phone call from 
- 5 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nowell, who told her that “Teko,” whom she knew and identified at trial as 
defendant, had just robbed somebody. 
¶ 17 
The only defense witness was defendant’s cousin, Leon Hudson, who testified 
that defendant was between five feet, seven inches and five feet, eight inches tall. 
¶ 18 
After deliberations, the jury found defendant guilty of the armed robbery and 
aggravated robbery of Morrison and Collins. Those convictions were upheld on 
direct appeal. 2012 IL App (2d) 101247-U. 
¶ 19 
Defendant subsequently filed a postconviction petition in which he raised a 
number of claims alleging constitutional deprivations. In support of these claims, 
defendant attached to the petition more than 160 pages of the record. In one of the 
claims, defendant alleged he received ineffective assistance because trial counsel 
failed to call Morrison to testify at trial. Defendant did not attach an affidavit from 
Morrison to his petition. However, in lieu of an affidavit, he submitted three signed, 
handwritten statements that Morrison had given to the police in the course of their 
investigation of the robbery, as well as the police summary reports of their 
questioning of Morrison. These documents showed that Morrison reported the 
robbery to police shortly after it occurred and, in the course of the investigation, 
gave the police three different versions of how the robbery occurred. 
¶ 20 
In the first statement, Morrison said he was robbed by two black men as he was 
leaving a friend’s apartment in the Grayslake Apartments complex. In the second 
statement, Morrison admitted knowing Nowell and said he went to the Grayslake 
Apartments to “help him out” but, when Nowell came to his car, he was with a 
gunman who robbed him. In the third statement, Morrison admitted going to the 
apartment complex with Kiernan Collins to sell marijuana to Nowell. The rest of 
this statement was very similar to Collins’s testimony about the robbery, except 
that Morrison stated that he saw Nowell and the gunman walk back to the 
apartments together, talking and laughing and giving each other “high fives.” 
¶ 21 
Morrison consistently described the gunman to police as “tall,” anywhere from 
six feet up to six feet, three inches in height. Further, Morrison did not identify 
defendant as the gunman when shown photos in a photo array on at least two 
occasions. In fact, the police reports show that Morrison selected the photo of 
- 6 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
someone other than defendant and indicated that he was sure that this other person 
was the gunman. 
¶ 22 
Defendant contended that, given the foregoing, it was unreasonable for counsel 
not to call Morrison. According to defendant, Morrison’s statements to police were 
exculpatory, and by calling Morrison to testify, defendant would have been able to 
get them before the jury. In addition, defendant maintained he would have been 
able to question the police about Morrison’s statements, something defendant had 
been prevented from doing at trial because, without Morrison testifying, the 
statements were inadmissible hearsay. Thus, defendant believed that the documents 
he attached to his petition constituted substantial evidence that his counsel had been 
ineffective. 
¶ 23 
The circuit court dismissed defendant’s petition at the second stage of 
postconviction proceedings, upon the State’s motion. Although the circuit court 
agreed that Morrison’s testimony would have been helpful to the defense, the 
circuit court found that defendant had not made a substantial showing of prejudice 
resulting from the failure to call Morrison. 
¶ 24 
On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of the 
petition. However, as to the claim of ineffective assistance based on counsel’s 
failure to call Morrison as a witness, the appellate court held that no review on the 
merits was necessary because defendant failed to attach Morrison’s affidavit to his 
petition. The appellate court held that, without Morrison’s affidavit, the petition did 
not comply with section 122-2 of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 
5/122-2 (West 2014)) and was properly dismissed for that reason alone. 
¶ 25 
We granted defendant’s petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. Mar. 
15, 2016). 
¶ 26 
ANALYSIS 
¶ 27 
The issue in this case is whether defendant’s postconviction petition was 
properly dismissed at the second stage without an evidentiary hearing. Although 
the petition defendant filed in the circuit court alleged several constitutional 
deprivations, before this court he has abandoned all claims except his claim of 
- 7 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to call Morrison as a 
witness at trial. Defendant asks this court to reverse the dismissal of his petition and 
to remand for third-stage postconviction proceedings on this claim. 
¶ 28 
The Act (725 ILCS 5/121-1 et seq. (West 2014)) provides a remedy to a 
criminal defendant whose federal or state constitutional rights were substantially 
violated at trial or sentencing. People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444 (2002). If the 
postconviction petition is not dismissed at the first stage as frivolous or patently 
without merit, it advances to the second stage. 725 ILCS 5/122-5 (West 2014). At 
the second stage, the State may either answer the petition or move to dismiss it. 
People v. Domagala, 2013 IL 113688, ¶ 33. If the State moves to dismiss the 
petition, the circuit court must decide whether to grant the State’s motion or 
advance the petition to the third stage for an evidentiary hearing. People v. 
Edwards, 197 Ill. 2d 239, 246 (2001). A postconviction petitioner is entitled to an 
evidentiary hearing only when the allegations in the petition supported by 
“affidavits, records, or other evidence” (725 ILCS 5/122-2 (West 2014)) make a 
substantial showing of a deprivation of rights under either the United States or 
Illinois Constitutions or both. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d at 455; Domagala, 2013 IL 
113688, ¶ 33. 
¶ 29 
At the second stage, “[t]he inquiry into whether a post-conviction petition 
contains sufficient allegations of constitutional deprivations does not require the 
circuit court to engage in any fact-finding or credibility determinations.” People v. 
Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 385 (1998). The Act contemplates that such 
determinations will be made at the evidentiary stage, not the dismissal stage, of the 
litigation. Id. In addition, at the second stage, the circuit court examines a 
postconviction petition to determine its legal sufficiency and any allegations not 
affirmatively refuted by the record must be taken as true. Domagala, 2013 IL 
113688, ¶ 35. Thus, the substantial showing of a constitutional violation that must 
be made at the second stage is “a measure of the legal sufficiency of the petition’s 
well-pled allegations of a constitutional violation, which if proven at an evidentiary 
hearing, would entitle petitioner to relief.” (Emphasis omitted.) Id. Where, as here, 
the circuit court dismisses a defendant’s postconviction petition at the second stage 
after finding no substantial showing of a constitutional deprivation has been made, 
review of the dismissal is de novo. People v. Cotto, 2016 IL 119006, ¶ 24. 
- 8 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
¶ 30 
In this case, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of 
defendant’s petition but refused to consider the ineffectiveness claim at issue here 
on its merits. Instead, the appellate court ruled, as a matter of law, that defendant’s 
petition was not in conformance with the requirements of section 122-2 of the Act 
because defendant did not attach to his postconviction petition an affidavit from the 
proposed witness (Morrison) and the lack of an affidavit was fatal to his claim of 
ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree. 
¶ 31 
First, we find no statutory support for the appellate court’s holding. Section 
122-2 of the Act provides that a postconviction petitioner must “clearly set forth the 
respects in which petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated” and “shall have 
attached thereto affidavits, records, or other evidence supporting its allegations or 
shall state why the same are not attached.” 725 ILCS 5/122-2 (West 2014). It is 
axiomatic that, when construing a statute, the primary objective is to ascertain and 
give effect to the intent of the legislature. In re Detention of Powell, 217 Ill. 2d 123 
(2005). The best evidence of legislative intent is the language used in the statute 
itself, which must be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Roselle Police Pension 
Board v. Village of Roselle, 232 Ill. 2d 546, 552 (2009). Moreover, when 
interpreting a statute, a court must not depart from the plain language or read into 
it exceptions, limitations, or conditions that the legislature did not express. People 
v. Shinaul, 2017 IL 120162, ¶ 17. 
¶ 32 
Construing section 122-2 of the Act according to its plain language, the Act 
permits a petitioner to make a substantial showing of a constitutional deprivation 
using any suitable evidence and does not limit a petitioner solely to the use of 
affidavits. The provision unambiguously provides that an allegation of a 
constitutional violation in a postconviction petition must be supported by 
“affidavits, records, or other evidence.” The conjunction “or” signifies that the 
things that it connects are alternatives or choices. See Merriam-Webster Online 
Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/or (last visited Sept. 7, 
2018). Nowhere does the language of the statute limit a postconviction petitioner to 
the use of affidavits to advance a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or, for 
that matter, any alleged constitutional deprivation raised in a postconviction 
petition. The only requirement is that the supporting evidence sufficiently 
demonstrate the alleged constitutional deprivation. 
- 9 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
¶ 33 
The real problem here is that the appellate court misconstrued defendant’s 
ineffectiveness claim. The appellate court held that, in all cases where a 
postconviction petitioner raises a claim of ineffective assistance based on counsel’s 
failure to investigate and call a witness, the claim “must” be supported by an 
affidavit from the proposed witness. 2017 IL App (2d) 141013-U, ¶ 54. The State 
agrees and, in support, cites four of our opinions: People v. Enis, 194 Ill. 2d 361 
(2000), People v. Johnson, 183 Ill. 2d 176 (1998), People v. Guest, 166 Ill. 2d 381 
(1995), and People v. Thompkins, 161 Ill. 2d 148 (1994). We find, however, that 
reliance on these cases is misplaced. Not only are these cases factually 
distinguishable from the case at bar, they do not stand for the proposition that the 
State espouses. 
¶ 34 
In none of the cases cited by the State did this court create a bright-line rule or 
refuse to consider whether a postconviction petitioner had made a substantial 
showing of ineffective assistance of counsel simply because no affidavit from the 
proposed witness was attached to the petition. Rather, this court has always held 
that dismissal is proper when the record or other evidence attached to the petition 
does not support the petitioner’s claim. In cases where a postconviction petitioner 
raises a claim of ineffective assistance based on counsel’s failure to call a witness, 
an affidavit from the proposed witness will be required if it is essential for the 
postconviction petitioner to make the necessary “substantial showing” to support a 
claim of ineffective assistance. It may be true that in most cases where this type of 
claim is raised, without an affidavit, there can be no way to assess whether the 
proposed witness could have provided evidence that would have been helpful to the 
defense. However, to interpret our case law as requiring an affidavit in all instances 
where this type of claim is raised is simply incorrect. 
¶ 35 
For example, in Thompkins, when considering the defendant’s appeal from the 
second-stage dismissal of his postconviction petition, we addressed his claim that 
his defense counsel had been ineffective for failing to interview or call as a witness 
a codefendant, Pamela. An affidavit from Pamela was not attached to the petition. 
However, the defendant stated in his own affidavit that Pamela had recanted a 
statement she had given to police in which she had implicated him. Johnson 
apparently believed that the recantation was evidence that Pamela would have 
provided favorable testimony if she had been called as a defense witness. 
Thompkins, 161 Ill. 2d at 160-61. When assessing this claim, we quoted Strickland 
- 10 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), stating: “ ‘In any ineffectiveness case, a 
particular decision not to investigate [or call someone as a witness] must be directly 
assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of 
deference to counsel’s judgments.’ ” Thompkins, 161 Ill. 2d at 161 (quoting 
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691). We then reviewed the record and discovered that 
Pamela had recanted her recantation and, therefore, the record did not support the 
defendant’s claim that Pamela would have provided favorable testimony. 
Accordingly, we affirmed the dismissal of this claim, finding that the defendant 
failed to make a substantial showing that his counsel was ineffective for failing to 
call Pamela. Id. at 162-63. 
¶ 36 
A second claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in Thompkins was based on 
counsel’s alleged failure to investigate two potential alibi witnesses, Tina Pitts and 
Karen Hayes. Again, no affidavits from these women were attached to the petition, 
but the defendant claimed in his own affidavit that he had been with these women 
on the day of the murder and they could have provided helpful alibi testimony to 
counter a portion of the prosecution’s case. We held that dismissal of the claim was 
proper, finding that the defendant’s failure to submit the affidavits of these two 
women precluded us from considering whether counsel had been ineffective. Id. at 
163. However, what precluded our review was the fact that there was nothing in the 
record to support the defendant’s assertion that counsel had not spoken to these 
women or that the women, if called at trial, would have testified that they were with 
Thompkins at the pertinent time. Moreover, the defendant’s assertion that he was 
with these women could not be taken as true because it ran counter to evidence that 
was presented at trial. Thus, without affidavits from these two women, it was 
impossible to determine whether the failure to call these proposed witnesses was 
evidence of ineffective assistance or simply trial strategy. 
¶ 37 
The same was true in Guest. Guest also involved a second-stage dismissal of a 
postconviction petition. In that case, one of the claims in the defendant’s petition 
was that counsel had been ineffective because he failed to investigate five alibi 
witnesses. The defendant did not provide affidavits from three of the proposed 
witnesses but averred in his own affidavit that, before trial, he gave counsel the 
names of these alibi witnesses yet counsel never interviewed them or called them to 
testify. We found this claim was properly dismissed because defendant failed to 
introduce affidavits from those individuals, stating what they would have testified. 
- 11 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Guest, 166 Ill. 2d at 401-02. The key point, however, was not the lack of affidavits 
but that, without their affidavits, it was impossible to determine whether the 
proposed witnesses could have provided any information or testimony favorable to 
defendant. Id. at 402. As Guest makes clear, there can be no substantial showing of 
ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate or call a witness if there is 
no evidence that the exculpatory evidence actually exists. 
¶ 38 
Similarly, in Johnson, the defendant argued in his postconviction petition that 
his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present the testimony of a proposed 
alibi witness. The proposed witness had died subsequent to the defendant’s trial, 
and therefore, the defendant was unable to obtain his affidavit. Instead, the 
defendant attached to his petition the affidavit of the proposed witness’s sister, who 
averred that her brother had been with her on the day of the murder and, therefore, 
would have testified to the same facts that she testified to at trial. Johnson, 183 Ill. 
2d at 192. We cited Guest for the proposition that an affidavit from the individual 
who would have testified is necessary to support a claim of ineffectiveness based 
on the failure to investigate and call a witness. Id. (citing Guest, 166 Ill. 2d at 402). 
However, we then considered whether the sister’s affidavit—provided in lieu of the 
proposed witness’s affidavit—supported the claim. We found it to be insufficient 
because it showed that the proposed witness’s testimony, at best, would have been 
cumulative and therefore did not constitute substantial evidence of ineffective 
assistance. Id. 
¶ 39 
Finally, in Enis, the defendant claimed his postconviction petition should not 
have been dismissed because he made a substantial showing that his counsel was 
ineffective for failing to investigate or present testimony of several proposed 
witnesses. In some instances, no affidavit of the proposed witness was attached to 
the petition. Enis, 194 Ill. 2d at 378-80. Citing Johnson and Thompkins, we 
reiterated that such claims must be supported by an affidavit from the proposed 
witness because, in the absence of an affidavit, a reviewing court cannot determine 
whether the proposed witness could have provided testimony or information 
favorable to the defendant. Id. at 380 (citing Johnson, 183 Ill. 2d at 192, and 
Thompkins, 161 Ill. 2d at 163). Even though we stated that, without an affidavit, 
further review of the claim was unnecessary, we still considered, as to each 
proposed witness, whether the record or any evidence presented in lieu of an 
- 12 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
affidavit sufficiently demonstrated that counsel had been ineffective. Finding none, 
we rejected the claim on its merits. Id. 
¶ 40 
In all of the cases cited above, the claims of ineffective assistance were based 
on counsel’s failure to discover and introduce new witness testimony, i.e., new 
evidence, which the defendants believed would have altered the outcome of their 
trials. Because the proposed witnesses that trial counsel allegedly failed to 
investigate or call to testify were generally the only source of this new evidence, 
without their affidavits, there was no proof that such evidence actually existed or 
that it would have been helpful to the defense. Where proof other than an affidavit 
was offered to show what the proposed witness would have testified, we considered 
that evidence and determined it was insufficient to make a substantial showing of 
ineffective assistance. Thus, our case law demonstrates that, when a defendant 
raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a postconviction petition based 
on counsel’s failure to investigate or call a witness to testify, the petition may 
properly be dismissed at the second stage—whether an affidavit is attached or 
not—if the evidence presented in support of the claim does not make a substantial 
showing that counsel was ineffective. As such, our case law is in accord with the 
plain language of section 122-2 of the Act, which provides that allegations in a 
postconviction petition may be supported by “affidavits, records, or other 
evidence.” 
¶ 41 
Critically, under the facts of the case now before us, an affidavit from the 
proposed witness is not necessary to advance defendant’s claim of ineffectiveness. 
In this case, defendant contends that his counsel was ineffective because the failure 
to call Morrison denied him the opportunity to bring exculpatory evidence to the 
attention of the jury. In support of this allegation, defendant attached three signed 
statements from Morrison. This documentation showed that Morrison had not 
identified defendant as the gunman and, instead, had identified someone else. 
Defendant alleged that, by not calling Morrison to the stand, he was prevented from 
getting this evidence to the jury. 
¶ 42 
Thus, in this case, unlike the typical case, defendant did not hope to introduce 
new evidence that could only be verified by an affidavit from the proposed witness. 
Instead, defendant wanted to introduce evidence that already existed: Morrison’s 
statements to the police, Morrison’s failure to identify defendant from photo 
- 13 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
lineups, and Morrison’s identification of someone other than defendant as the 
gunman. All of this evidence was inadmissible hearsay unless Morrison testified. 
Under these circumstances, anything that Morrison might say if called to testify at 
an evidentiary hearing is irrelevant to defendant’s claim. Consequently, under the 
facts of this case, an affidavit from Morrison was not necessary, and it was 
appropriate for defendant to support the allegation of ineffectiveness with portions 
of the record and exhibits. 
¶ 43 
Given our finding that the absence of an affidavit from Morrison was not, by 
itself, a sufficient basis for dismissing defendant’s postconviction petition, we find 
that the appellate court erred in so holding. Therefore, we must now consider 
whether defendant’s petition was properly dismissed because he failed to make a 
substantial showing that his counsel was ineffective for failing to call Morrison as a 
witness. 
¶ 44 
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are judged under the two-pronged 
standard set forth in Strickland and adopted by this court in People v. 
Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504 (1984). Under this standard, a defendant must show that 
counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that 
there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the 
result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 
694. To satisfy the deficient performance prong of Strickland, a defendant must 
show that his counsel’s performance was so inadequate “that counsel was not 
functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed by the sixth amendment” and, also, must 
overcome the strong presumption that any challenged action or inaction may have 
been the product of sound trial strategy. People v. Evans, 186 Ill. 2d 83, 93 
(1999); People v. Griffin, 178 Ill. 2d 65, 73-74 (1997). This is a high bar to clear 
since 
matters 
of 
trial 
strategy are 
generally 
immune 
from 
claims 
of ineffective assistance of counsel. People v. West, 187 Ill. 2d 418 (1999); People 
v. Smith, 195 Ill. 2d 179, 188 (2000). In addition, even when a defendant can show 
deficient performance, the second prong requires the defendant to show that he was 
prejudiced as a result. That is, a defendant must show that counsel’s deficiency was 
so serious that it deprived him of a fair trial. Smith, 195 Ill. 2d at 188. 
¶ 45 
Defendant contends that he made a substantial showing of ineffective 
assistance. He argues that the State’s case against him was weak because no 
- 14 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
physical evidence linked him to the offense, he never made any statements 
incriminating himself, and the identification testimony provided by the State’s 
main witnesses, Collins and Nowell, was not convincing. In light of the above, 
defendant concludes that trial counsel was deficient for not calling Morrison and, 
thereby, introducing Morrison’s exculpatory statements to the police. Defendant 
further asserts that, if Morrison had been called as a witness, there is a reasonable 
probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different. He concludes, 
therefore, that he made a substantial showing that he was prejudiced by the failure 
to call Morrison. 
¶ 46 
We believe that defendant overstates the value of Morrison’s statements to the 
police. While it is true that the materials defendant attached to his petition establish 
that Morrison did not identify defendant as the gunman and selected someone other 
than defendant from a photo array, believing him to be the gunman, the materials 
also show that Morrison’s description of the gunman was substantially similar to 
Collins’s description. The jury was well aware of the fact Collins’s identification of 
defendant was uncertain because of the conditions that existed at the time of the 
robbery—the robbery was at night, the gunman was wearing a hooded sweatshirt 
tightly pulled over his head, and his focus was on the gun, which was pointed at 
them during the brief time that the robbery took place. In addition to these factors, 
Morrison was also concentrating on starting the car and escaping from the situation. 
These are all reasons why Morrison’s identification of someone other than 
defendant could be called into question. 
¶ 47 
We also disagree that the identification evidence, as a whole, was weak. 
Although Collins was only 70% sure of his identification of defendant, Nowell 
unequivocally identified defendant as the gunman. The jury could have relied 
heavily on his testimony because the evidence strongly suggested that Nowell and 
defendant had planned the robbery together. In addition, other evidence tended to 
corroborate Nowell’s identification of defendant. For example, Whiteside testified 
that Nowell called her shortly after the robbery and told her that “Teko robbed 
somebody.” This testimony also dispelled the notion that Nowell’s identification of 
defendant was fabricated later at the police station. 
¶ 48 
Even if we were to agree with defendant that counsel’s failure to call Morrison 
was some evidence of deficient performance, we do not believe that defendant can 
- 15 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
overcome the presumption that counsel’s decision was the product of sound trial 
strategy. As noted above, to satisfy the deficient performance prong of Strickland, 
a defendant must show that his counsel’s performance was so inadequate “that 
counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed by the sixth amendment” 
and, also, must overcome the strong presumption that any challenged action or 
inaction may have been the product of sound trial strategy. Evans, 186 Ill. 2d at 93. 
¶ 49 
As the State points out in its brief, there are a number of reasons why defense 
counsel might have chosen not to call Morrison. Morrison gave the police three 
different statements about the manner in which the robbery occurred. These 
statements, as well as other materials defendant attached to his postconviction 
petition, showed that Morrison believed that Nowell was an active participant in the 
robbery. Morrison told the police that, after the robbery as he drove away from the 
parking lot, he saw the gunman and Nowell walking back to Nowell’s apartment, 
laughing and giving each other “high fives.” Morrison’s statements to the police, if 
presented to the jury, could have solidified Nowell’s role in the robbery and given 
his identification of defendant even more credibility. 
¶ 50 
Also, Morrison told police that during the robbery Nowell told him to cooperate 
because the gunman “had just gotten out of jail.” Apparently, prior to the robbery, 
defendant had, in fact, been recently released from jail. Defense counsel might not 
have wanted to call Morrison and risk this information getting to the jury. 
¶ 51 
Defendant argues that it was important to get Morrison’s statements to the 
police introduced at trial because, in those statements, he consistently described the 
armed robber as being between six feet, one inch and six feet, three inches tall, 
while defendant is apparently only five feet, eight inches or five feet, nine inches in 
height. However, both Collins and Nowell described the gunman as being over six 
feet tall, and the record shows that defense counsel was able to press this point with 
the jury by questioning them and other witnesses at length about this discrepancy in 
height. In fact, defense counsel was able to bring out Morrison’s description of the 
gunman’s height during his cross-examination of Officer Joe Manges of the 
Grayslake Police Department. Thus, even if Morrison’s statements to the police 
had been introduced at trial, this evidence would have simply corroborated the 
other witnesses on this point. Accordingly, this evidence would have been 
cumulative. Trial counsel’s performance cannot be considered deficient because of 
- 16 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
a failure to present cumulative evidence. People v. Henderson, 171 Ill. 2d 124, 155 
(1996); People v. Brisbon, 164 Ill. 2d 236, 248 (1995). 
¶ 52 
CONCLUSION 
¶ 53 
For the reasons stated above, we find that defendant has not presented 
substantial evidence that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial. 
Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of defendant’s postconviction petition at the 
second stage, without an evidentiary hearing. 
¶ 54 
Affirmed. 
¶ 55 
JUSTICE THOMAS, specially concurring: 
¶ 56 
I agree with my colleagues in the majority that defendant’s postconviction 
petition was properly dismissed, and therefore I concur in the judgment. Unlike the 
majority, however, I believe that the appellate court correctly upheld the dismissal 
on the basis of defendant’s failure to provide an affidavit from Morrison, and 
therefore I cannot join the majority opinion. 
¶ 57 
The majority asserts that this court never “create[d] a bright-line rule or 
refuse[d] to consider whether a postconviction petitioner had made a substantial 
showing of ineffective assistance of counsel simply because no affidavit from the 
proposed witness was attached to the petition.” Supra ¶ 34. In fact, that is exactly 
what this court has done. The majority claims that what this court has “always held” 
instead is that when a petitioner raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 
for failure to call a witness, an affidavit will be required only in those cases where 
an affidavit is necessary for the petitioner to make the necessary “substantial 
showing” to support a claim of ineffective assistance. Supra ¶ 34. Our cases say 
nothing of the kind. The majority cites not a single case that says this and simply 
ignores what this court’s cases actually say. One would think that, if this court has 
“always held” something, it would be possible to find at least one case that actually 
says that thing. 
- 17 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
¶ 58 
The majority relies on four decisions—Enis, Johnson, Guest, and 
Thompkins—to make its case that this court has not created a bright-line rule that an 
affidavit from a potential witness is required to support a postconviction claim that 
counsel was ineffective for failing to call that witness and that this court has instead 
“always held” only that such an affidavit may be required. Here is what those cases 
actually say. In Enis, 194 Ill. 2d at 380, this court stated: 
“A claim that trial counsel failed to investigate and call a witness must be 
supported by an affidavit from the proposed witness. [Citations.] In the absence 
of such an affidavit, a reviewing court cannot determine whether the proposed 
witness could have provided testimony or information favorable to the 
defendant, and further review of the claim is unnecessary.” (Emphasis added.) 
Enis also referred to affidavits as being a necessity. See id. at 382-83 (“Defendant 
has failed to support this claim with the necessary affidavit from Burton.”), 387 
(“Defendant has failed to support this claim with the necessary affidavit from 
Norvell.”). 
¶ 59 
In Johnson, 183 Ill. 2d at 192, this court stated: 
“In order to support a claim of failure to investigate and call a witness, a 
defendant must tender an affidavit from the individual who would have 
testified. Without such an affidavit, a reviewing court cannot determine 
whether the proposed witness could have provided any information or 
testimony favorable to defendant. [Citations.] Because defendant has failed to 
provide an affidavit from Dennis Taylor, further consideration of his purported 
testimony is unnecessary.” (Emphases added.) 
¶ 60 
In Guest, 166 Ill. 2d at 402, this court stated: 
“To support a claim of failure to investigate and call witnesses, a defendant 
must introduce affidavits from those individuals who would have testified. 
Without affidavits, this court cannot determine whether these witnesses could 
have provided any information or testimony favorable to defendant. [Citation.] 
Defendant has provided no affidavits from Kathy Wilson, Dorothy Johnson, or 
Albert Johnson. Because defendant has failed to submit affidavits from these 
proposed witnesses, we will not consider them further.” (Emphases added.) 
- 18 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
¶ 61 
Finally, in Thompkins, 161 Ill. 2d at 163, this court stated: 
“The defendant next contends that defense counsel was ineffective because 
he did not investigate two potential alibi witnesses, Tina Pitts and Karen Hayes. 
In the affidavit the defendant submitted with his post-conviction petition, he 
states that he was with those two women during the period when other evidence 
showed that he was meeting with Keith Culbreath prior to the offenses. The 
defendant believes that Pitts and Hayes therefore could have provided helpful 
alibi testimony to counter a portion of the prosecution’s case. The defendant has 
failed to submit affidavits from Pitts and Hayes themselves, however, and thus 
we are precluded from considering this issue further.” (Emphasis added.) 
And these are the cases the majority cites in support of its position. If this is what it 
means for cases to support an argument, one wonders what it would mean for them 
to soundly defeat it. 
¶ 62 
The above cases demonstrate that, contrary to the majority’s position, this court 
has always held that an affidavit is required to support a postconviction claim of 
counsel’s failure to investigate and call a particular witness. This court has never 
held only that an affidavit may be necessary. See supra ¶ 34. The majority claims 
that this court never created a “bright-line rule” that an affidavit is required. Supra 
¶ 34. If words like “must” and “necessary” and phrases like “thus we are precluded 
from considering the issue further” do not create a bright-line rule, it is difficult to 
imagine what a bright-line rule would look like. This court has never stated that an 
affidavit “may” be required, is “usually” required, or is “often” required. Rather, 
this court has clearly and unequivocally stated that an affidavit must be provided, 
that such an affidavit is necessary, and that without such an affidavit the court is 
precluded from considering the issue further. And the rule has always been stated 
in general—rather than case-specific—terms. The court has spoken about what a 
defendant must do when he or she raises this type of claim. Indeed, this court has 
been so strict about the affidavit rule that it enforced it even with respect to a 
potential witness who was dead and thus could not possibly provide an affidavit. 
See Johnson, 183 Ill. 2d at 191-92. This court has also held than an affidavit that 
lacks a signature provides no support for a petition’s allegations. See Guest, 166 Ill. 
2d at 402. The majority has not cited a single case in which this court held that a 
- 19 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
postconviction claim of ineffective assistance for failure to call a witness can 
survive second-stage proceedings without an affidavit from the proposed witness. 
¶ 63 
The majority claims that, despite what the above cases say, this court has been 
willing to consider whether supporting material that a defendant supplied in lieu of 
an affidavit was sufficient to support a postconviction claim of failure to call a 
particular witness. Once again, the majority is able to make this claim only by 
failing to disclose what our cases actually say. When this court “considered” 
material provided in lieu of an affidavit from the witness, the court did so on an 
“even if” basis. In Johnson, for instance, this court clearly set forth the affidavit 
requirement and stated that further consideration of the witness’s purported 
testimony was unnecessary because no affidavit was provided. Johnson, 183 Ill. 2d 
at 192. The court then stated that, “[e]ven assuming defendant’s allegation was 
sufficiently supported, Dennis’s testimony was apparently to be cumulative.” 
(Emphasis added.) Id. Similarly, in Enis, this court stated the affidavit requirement 
in no uncertain terms. Enis, 194 Ill. 2d at 380. With respect to potential witness 
Moselle Williams, this court held that defendant had failed to support the claim 
with an affidavit and then stated that, “[e]ven if we considered the February 4, 
1998, investigation note, in lieu of an affidavit, defendant has failed to demonstrate 
that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of defendant’s trial would 
have been different had counsel presented Williams’ testimony.” (Emphasis 
added.) Id. Similarly, with respect to witness Roy Norvell, the court stated that the 
defendant had failed to support his claim with the “necessary” affidavit. Id. at 387. 
The court then listed the documents that defendant had supplied in lieu of an 
affidavit and stated, “[e]ven if we consider these documents in lieu of an affidavit 
from Norvell, none of the documents support defendant’s contention that Norvell’s 
testimony would have rebutted Burk’s testimony.” (Emphasis added.) Id. If what 
the majority says is correct, then there would have been no reason to word the 
analysis in this manner. The court would have simply considered the material that 
the defendant provided. Instead, the court rejected the claims based on the lack of 
an affidavit and then said what the result would be “even if” it considered the 
material that the defendant attached. This point, more so than any other, 
conclusively establishes the error of the majority’s analysis. The majority cannot 
(and therefore does not) explain this court’s use of the “even if” analysis in these 
cases. 
- 20 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
¶ 64 
In People v. Spivey, 2017 IL App (2d) 140941, the defendant interpreted Enis in 
the manner that the majority does today. The defendant argued that Enis “ ‘was 
willing to consider the claim on its merits without affidavits to support it.’ ” Id. 
¶ 15. The appellate court correctly rejected this argument. The court noted that this 
court “did not equivocate about the necessity for affidavits from proposed 
witnesses” and viewed the lack of an affidavit as an independent reason for 
rejecting the defendant’s ineffective assistance claim. Id. Thus, the appellate court 
correctly observed that “in the absence of the requisite affidavit, [Enis’s] claim 
would not have survived even if meritorious.” Id. 
¶ 65 
The Seventh Circuit has similarly read Illinois case law as imposing an affidavit 
requirement. In Jones v. Calloway, 842 F.3d 454 (7th Cir. 2016), the defendant 
argued in a habeas proceeding that his attorney had been ineffective for failing to 
call his codefendant as a witness. The Seventh Circuit noted that the defendant had 
raised this same claim in an Illinois postconviction proceeding. The trial court had 
dismissed the petition, and the appellate court affirmed on the basis that the 
defendant had failed to attach an affidavit from his codefendant. Id. at 459. The 
appellate court held that the defendant was required to attach an affidavit from his 
codefendant stating both that he was willing to testify and what the subject of the 
testimony would have been. Id. at 461. The appellate court stated that the failure to 
attach the affidavit was alone sufficient to justify the dismissal but went on to 
explain that defendant could not satisfy the Strickland test in any event. Id. at 459. 
The first question that the federal court had to answer was whether the state court 
had found the Strickland claim to be procedurally defaulted. The court held that it 
had been, as the Illinois appellate court held that the lack of an affidavit alone 
justified the dismissal. The Seventh Circuit explained that “Illinois courts regularly 
enforce the affidavit rule.” Id. at 461. Thus, it appears that the Illinois Supreme 
Court is the only court that does not believe that the Illinois Supreme Court’s cases 
mean what they say. 
¶ 66 
The majority tries to argue that this case is somehow different from other ones 
in which this court has required an affidavit. The majority claims that defendant 
simply wanted to introduce evidence that already existed (Morrison’s statements to 
the police, his failure to identify defendant in a photo lineup, and his identification 
of someone else as the gunman) and that Morrison’s testimony is irrelevant to 
defendant’s claim. That is certainly interesting, given that defendant pleaded in his 
- 21 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
postconviction petition that, “[i]n the case at bar, there was no reasonable strategic 
purpose in failing to call Matt Morrison as a witness. Without the exculpatory 
testimony of Morrison, the jury was left only with the State’s version of events.” 
(Emphasis added.) And, again, we do not have an affidavit from Morrison, so we 
do not know if he was willing to testify and what his testimony would have been. 
The majority claims that the “real problem here is that the appellate court 
misconstrued defendant’s ineffectiveness claim.” Supra ¶ 33. Defendant’s petition 
proves that it is actually the majority that has misconstrued defendant’s 
ineffectiveness claim. 
¶ 67 
There is in fact nothing remarkable about the claim before us, and it is strikingly 
similar to a claim for which we required an affidavit in Enis. With respect to 
prospective witness Roy Norvell, the defendant argued that, if called, Norvell 
would testify that he saw a man wearing white sunglasses in the victim’s parking 
lot and that he had identified someone other than the defendant as the man wearing 
the white sunglasses. Enis, 194 Ill. 2d at 386-87. The defendant did not provide an 
affidavit from Norvell but instead relied on police reports and interviews with 
Norvell. Id. at 387. These documents were sufficient for this court to review the 
substance of the defendant’s claim, but the court still rejected the claim on the basis 
that the defendant had “failed to support this claim with the necessary affidavit 
from Norvell.” Id. Thus, the present case is on all fours with Enis, and if an affidavit 
was necessary in Enis, it is also necessary here. Given the similarity between the 
present case and Enis, it will be impossible for the appellate court to discern when 
an affidavit is required and when it is not, and this problem is a direct result of the 
majority’s refusal to acknowledge what our cases actually say. 
¶ 68 
The majority claims that its holding that an affidavit is not always required to 
support this type of claim is in accord with the plain language of the statute, which 
merely requires that a petition have attached to it “ ‘affidavits, records, or other 
evidence’ ” supporting its allegations. Supra ¶ 40. The majority claims that there is 
“no statutory support for the appellate court’s holding.” Supra ¶ 31. The problem 
with this statement is that this court has interpreted the statute as meaning that, 
when the claim raised in a postconviction petition is ineffective assistance of 
counsel based on the failure to call a particular witness, the supporting document 
must be an affidavit. The appellate court is not free to ignore this court’s holdings. 
The statute generically lists what kinds of supporting documents may be used in 
- 22 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
support of postconviction claims, but this court has clarified which type must be 
used in support of a particular postconviction claim and has explained why this is 
so. When this court has interpreted a statute, that interpretation becomes part of the 
statute itself unless and until the legislature amends it to the contrary. People v. 
Woodard, 175 Ill. 2d 435, 444 (1997). Thus, this court’s clear unequivocal 
statement in cases such as Guest, Enis, and Johnson that the type of supporting 
documentation in cases such as this must be an affidavit is now considered part of 
the statute itself. This court has consistently expressed that rule for decades, and the 
legislature has not amended the statute in response. The majority clearly errs in 
ignoring what our cases actually say and treating the issue before us as one of first 
impression. 
¶ 69 
If the majority believes this court’s cases are in error, it needs to overrule them. 
If it believes that the court made a mistake, then it should own the mistake rather 
than claiming that our cases say something other than what they clearly say. 
However, this would require a discussion of why departure from stare decisis is 
appropriate, which may be difficult. Stare decisis considerations are at their apex in 
matters of statutory construction. People v. Espinoza, 2015 IL 118218, ¶ 29. This 
court has construed the statute as requiring an affidavit when the claim is 
ineffective assistance for failure to call a particular witness. This interpretation has 
been clearly stated and consistently applied by this court and the appellate court for 
decades. Likely realizing the difficulty it faces here, the majority instead tries to 
argue that our cases say something other than what they actually do and criticizes 
the appellate court for failing to discern the hidden meaning in those cases. I cannot 
go along with such an analysis. The appellate court’s holding has a sound basis in 
this court’s case law, and I would affirm its decision for the reasons stated in its 
opinion. 
¶ 70 
JUSTICE KILBRIDE joins in this special concurrence. 
- 23 ­