No. 2—09—0088 Opin ion f il ed Feb ruary 24, 2011

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ILLINO IS, ) o f Ka ne Co un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 96—CF—1191 ) LORENZO J. GON ZALEZ, ) Ho no r ab le ) Timot hy Q. S heldo n, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JUS TI CE SCH OS TO K delivere d t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Jus t ices Ze noff and Bur ke c onc ur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. OPINI ON The defend ant , Lo re nzo Go nzalez , a ppe als fro m the De cem be r 28 , 20 08, orde

r of t he cir cu it courtof Kan

e County den

yi ng hi s postconviction petition fol lowi ng an evide nt ia

ry h earin g. On ap pe al, t he de fendant argues that he i s enti tled to a new trial

based on n ew l y di sc ove red ev i de nc e of his actual in nocence. A

lternati vel y, the def endan t argues that he is e

ntitled to a new trial

because trial co un se l wa s ine ffec t ive in fa iling t o ca ll an a libi wit ne ss t o t es t ify at t r ial. We affir m. BACK GROUND On Jul y 16, 1996, t he de fen da nt , alo ng wit h a co de fen da nt , Ja mes Le wis (Lewi s), was i ndicted in connecti on with the m

urderof R

al ph S tadler i

n A urora, on J

an uary 15, 199 6. The defend ant and Le wis were tried separatel y. On Decem ber 5, 1997, followi

ng a j ury t rial, t he de fendant was fou ndNo. 2—09—0088

-2-

gui l ty of f irst degree m

urderand was s entenced to 33 years ’ i mprisonm ent. On October 7, 19 99 , t his courtaff irm ed the def endan t’s convi ction an d sentence

on direct appeal . See People v. Gonzalez , No. 2—98— 0572 ( 1999)(un

pub l i shed order

und er Suprem

e Court Ru

l e 23) ( Gonzalez I

). The f ac ts n ec es sa ry f or an un de rs tan di ng of the di sp osi ti on o f thi s appeal are as fol

lows. Stadler had b een f

ound by hi s son-i n-law, Greg Zanis, around 1 p.m ., at 610 Jungel s Street in A urora, a resi dence f

rom whi ch Stadle r conducted busi

ness related to various rental

propert ie s that he owned. Stadler ha d b ee n sh o t in

the fac e. One of the ren

tal properties owned b

y Stadler was located at 561 Nor th Root Street in

Aurora. Jenni

fer Lewis (Jennif

er), who wa s Lewis’s sis t er , an d S t ev e K ling el, Jennif er’s boyf rien d, re nt ed a n apa rt ment in t his building. Le wis o cca siona lly st ayed a t t he ap ar t ment an d th e def en da n t v i si ted h i m at th e a pa rtm en t. At tria l , Jen ni f er’s ne i ghb or, Irma Rodriguez, testifi ed that sometim

e between 11 a.m. an

d 1 p. m. o n Ja nu ar y 15 , 19 96 , she an d h er da ug ht er , So nia Gar cia, saw Lew is and t he de fendant st anding in the driv eway talki ng to Greg Zan

i s. Es mere l da

A vi l a te sti f i ed tha t sh e l i ve d s i x h ous eswe st of St adler’s rental of

fi ce. Between 11:15 a.m . and 11:45 a.m . on January 15, 1996, she looked o ut her wi nd owand saw what she describ ed as two “y oung kids” runni

ng across Ju ng els St r ee t . Ga r cia and Avila testifi

ed as to t he cl

ot hi ng worn by

the in div idua ls they observed. The cl

ot hi ng they descri bed was very si m i l ar. W i l l i am

Je f f ers , an i nv es ti ga torwith the A

urora po li ce departmen

t, t estif ie d that the vi ctim ’s wal

le t was found wi

thin a bl ock of the defen

dant’s h ome. Both Kl in gel and Jen nifer testif ie d at the defe

ndan t’s trial . Klin

gel testifi ed that around 11:30 a. m. on Ja

nua ry 15, 199 6, he

wasworki

ng, as a tow-tru ck dri

ve r, when

he rec ei ve d a pagef rom Jennifer. When he c alled her back , Je nnifer t old him that Lew is had c alled her and said t hat he and t he defend ant had jus t ro bbed S t adler and ha d sho t him to dea t h. Ap pr o ximat ely 30 minu t es aft er hisNo. 2—09—0088

-3-

con ve rs ati on wit h Je nnife r , Kling el w as towi ng a c ar wh en he sa w t he de fe nd an t ’s ca rdr ive by. Kl in gel motioned to the defen

dant. The def

endan t sto pped hi s car and ca

me over to Kli ngel’stow truck. Klingel aske d t he de fendant , “w hat t he hell you gu ys did?” T he defen dant responded that “we sh ot tha t mothe r f *** er a nd gota f ew h und red b ucks .” Based on wh

at Jenni fer h ad told hi m, K li ngel knew that the def

endan t was referri

ng to St adl er. However, he di d not go to the police. Kl in gel testifi ed that he fi

nal ly went to t he polic e on June 21, 1996. On t he da y h e w en t to t he pol i ce , h e w ason c ond

i ti ona l di scha rge f or m i sdem ea nor t he ft an d w as als o su pp o se d t o be in courton s ome p ending f

elony charges . He was el

igi ble for consecuti

ve pri son sen

tences tot alin

g 14 years in connection with those fel ony c harges, an d a petition to revoke hi s condi tional dis charge was pendi ng. Howev

er, in e xc ha ng e f

o rhis t es t imo ny, the Stat e’s A tt orney di sm is sed the f el ony c harges and the peti

tion to revoke his

condi tional dis charge. Jenn if er testifi ed that on January

15, 1996, Lewi s and the def endan t had been at her apa rt ment ar ou nd 9 o r 1 0 a. m. and l ef t in the def endan t’s c ar to get ci

garettes . Je

n n i f er f ur th er testi f i ed th at, a few we eks aft er t he mur der , she spo ke t o t he police at her apartmen t, but she did n

ot reveal all that she knew . S he next spo ke t o t he pol i ceon June 21, 1996, af

ter Lewis h

ad been arrested. The parties then pre sented astipul

ation concern

in g what Jenn

if er had told the poli

ce on June 21, 1996. Acco rd ingto the stipul

ation, Jen nifer told the polic e that Le wi s h ad cal l ed he r ar oun d 11 :30 a.m. on Jan uary 15, 1996, and said that he needed to talk to Kli ngel about som

ethi ng s erious. Wh

en Jen nifer asked what Lewi s was tal

kin g about, he to ld h

er that she did not have a l andl ord anym ore. When Jenn if er ask ed wh at he mean t, Lewis sa

i d tha t he h ad ki l l ed h i m . Jenn if er t hen pa ged Klingel, and when he cal le d her bac

k, she told hi

m wh at Lewis had sai d.No. 2—09—0088

-4-

In ve sti ga torMar shall Gau er of t he Aur or a po lice dep ar t ment testifi ed that he had

in terviewe d t he defend ant at t he Kane Co unt y jail on J une 22, 199 6. Th e defendant d enied bei ng at Klingel ’s apa rt ment t he mo rning o f t he mur de r , sa ying t ha t he us ua ll y sle pt un t il noon. T he defen dant also den i ed kn owi ng S tadler or be i

ng i nv olv ed i n Stad l er’s m urder. The Ho nor able Jo hn

L. P et er sen t est ifi

ed t hat he is a jud ge in t he Six t ee nt h Ju dic ial C irc uit and, on June 23, 1996, had pres ide d at t he bo nd hea rings fo r t he de fendant and L ewis. Altho ugh t he bond heari

ngs f or t he def endan t and Lewi s were hel

d separately

, the two ma

de eye co nt act wit h one another dur ingthe

tran si ti on b etw een th

ei r h ea ri ng s, a nd one sa i d to the other, “ You

tricked on me,” to whi ch the other repli

ed, “No, you tricked

on me .” Pam

Mo naco , a n assist ant St at e’s At t or ney who was al so present at t he b ond hearing, t est ifi ed t hat , a s de fendant was being led o ut of his bo nd h ea ri n g, Lewi s was

b ei n g b rough t i n to the room . The two m

ade eye c on

tact an d def en da n t sa i d to Lewi s, “ You tri cked

on m e.” L ewis rep l i ed, “

No, y ou tric ked on me an d I’m goi ng to get you.” The defend ant di

d n ot testi f y on h i s ow n b eh al f an d di d n ot pres en t an y ev i den ce . D uri

n g i ts del i berati ons, th

e j ury had m ulti ple questions f

or t he trial

court and at one poin

t all 12 jurors stated to the tri al cou rt th at they

di d n ot feel furt her deliber at ions w ou ld lead t o a ver dict . H ow ever , t he tria l courtorde

red the j ury to con ti nu e d el i be rati ng . A f ter d el i be rati ng f or11 ho ur s, t he jur y found the def endan t guil ty of f i rst deg ree m urder. Fo llowing his unsucces sf

ul di rect appeal, the def

endan t file d a pro se pos tcon

vi cti on p eti ti on on J anua ry 14 , 2 000 . O ne of the two po in ts raised i n hi s petiti on was thathe was e ntitled to a new trial because of newl y di sc overed evi

dence of hi s actual i

nnocen ce that could not have b een dis covered

pr ior t o t rial t hro ugh t he ex er cis e o f du e d ilige nc e. T he pe t it io n a lleg ed t ha t t his evi dence was o f su ch co nc lus ive ch ar ac t er t ha t it wo uld un do ub t ed ly chang e t he r es ul t o n r et r ial. S pe cif ica lly,No. 2—09—0088

-5-

t he defen dant attached to hi s petiti on an af fi davi t from Lewi

s, dated February

17, 1999, whic

h asse rt ed t he de f

en da n t’s i n n oce n ce . L ewi s’ s af

f i da v i t detai l ed th e ev en ts l eadi n g u p to the murder of St ad ler . Le wis st at ed t ha t t he de fen da nt wa s no t wit h him when he m urde red Stad

l er. Ad di t io na lly, Lew is explained t hat , p rio r t o t he pr epa ra t ion o f the affidavit, he rem ai ne d s i l en t on t he ad vic e o f co un se l be ca us e h e w as in t he mids t o f his o wn t r ial. On Mar ch 1, 200 0, t he t rial co ur t app oint ed c ou nsel t o r epr ese nt the def endan t. On F ebruary 15, 200 1, t he de fendant filed an ame nd ed po st co nvic t io n p et it io n. On Ap r il 24, 2001, t he State fi

le d a mot ion t o d ismi ss t he de fendant ’s pe t itio n. On Novem ber 19, 2001, followi

ng argum ent, the trial courtdeni ed the St ate’s motion to dism iss and de nie d t he pe t it io n, st at ing t ha t it r ec alle d t he cr ed ible testim ony a t t rial and that the af

fi davi t was contrary to t hat evi

dence. The def

endan t appealed. On appe al , thi s court vaca

ted the tria l court’s j udgm en t and rem anded f or an e vi den tia ry heari ng. Peo ple v. Gonzalez , No. 2—01—1329, slip op. at 7 (2003) (unpublis hed order under Su pr eme Court Rul

e 23) ( Gonz

alez II ) . T his court hel

d that, although the trial

court had considered t he Nov em b er 19 , 20 01 , hea

ri n g to be an

evi dentia ry h earin g, it was not a proper eviden tiary heari ng. We rea son

ed tha t, si nc e the tri

al cou rt m ov ed d i re ctl y f rom th e h ea ri n g on th e S tate ’s

moti on to dism iss i n to a h ea ri n g on th e def en da n t’s peti ti on , de f en se cou n se l wa s u n pr ep ared , a

n d th us no witne ssest est ifi

ed a nd no ot her evidenc e wa s pr ese nt ed. Acco rd ingly, we va cat ed t he de cision o f the tria l court an d rem anded f or an e vi den tia ry he ari ng on the def endan t’s postconv

i cti on petiti

on. Id . On June 23, 2006, upon rem and, the trial

court granted the d efendan t’s r equest to fi

le an amend ed postco nvi

ction petition. Accordin

gly , on May 17, 2007, t he def

endan t file d a se con d am ended pos tcon vi cti on p eti ti on. In tha t pe ti ti on, i n a ddi ti on t o a rg uing t hat he was enti tled to a new trial based on n

ewl y di scovered evi

dence of actual i nnocen ce, the defe

ndan t raised a n ew grou nd ofNo. 2—09—0088

-6-

r elie f, na mely, t ha t t r ial c o un se l wa s ine ffec t ive in f ai l i n g to c al l an al i b i wi tn es s, Suza

n n e P l an te, to t es t ify. On Jun

e 13, 20 07, the Stat e fi

le d a m ot ion to strike, argui

ng that the in

cl usi on of a new ground for reli

ef at t he third stage of postconvi ction proceedi

ngs was untim el y. On Jul y 17, 2007, t he defen dant fi le d a response, ack now ledging t hat t he unt imeli ness a rg ument was wel

l f ounded but ar guing tha

t the tri al cou rt sh oul d c ons i de r th e al i

bi tes ti mony of Plan te on the base s of fun dam ental fa irne ss an d j ud icia l ec o no my. On De cem be r 13 , 20 07, a h

ea ri ng wa s h el d on the State ’s m oti on to strike. Defensecounsel argued tha t sh e w asappoi

nte d to re pr es en

t t he def endan t for the fi

rst t im e on rema

nd an d had su bse qu en t ly

dis covered

the issue o f Plante’s ali

bi test im ony. Counsel argued that t he i nef fectiv eness of the f ail ure t o c all Plant e su ppo rt ed t he defendan t’s clai m of actual i

nnocence. However, because Plan te could hav

e been ca lled , co un se l co uld no t t ie h er t es t imo ny int o t he ex ist ing cla im o f ne wly dis cover ed

ev ide nc e. Fo llo win g a r gu men t , t he t r ial c o ur t gr an t ed t he de fen da nt lea ve t o file a “succe ssi ve” postconviction petition in cl udin g the new cl

ai m of in eff ective assistance. At a January

4, 2008, stat us he ari

ng, th e State ex plai ne d the posture of

the c ase . S pe cif

ica lly, t he Stat e expl

ai ned that the def

endan t had rais ed a n ew i ss uei n h i s s ec ond am en de d pos tcon vi cti on pet itio n, when

the fi rst amen ded petition h

ad a lr ea dy a dvan

ce d to th e th i rd sta ge . Th e S tate ack now ledge d t hat t he pa rt ies had agr eed t hat t he defen dant should be ab le

to rais e the new issue, but it argued thatit sh

ould ha ve an oppor tunity

to address the i ssue at the second stage. The trial court had previ

ously agreed wi

th the parties’ s

uggestion to all

ow the defen

dant to fil e a suc ces sive pos tcon vi cti on petition to raise

the new issue. The State in dic ated that it had

erred in suggestin g that t he de f en da nt’ s a men de d pe ti ti on be l abel ed a “suc cessi

ve” peti tion. Rather, the State suggested that t he de f en da n t sh oul d r eq ue st l ea v e to fi le an “addi tional is sue” i n hi s f irst am ended peti

tion and tha

tNo. 2—09—0088

-7-

t he St at e be a llowed t o a ddr ess t he new issue a t t he se co nd stage—to le

t t he n ew i ssue catch

upto t he third stage, if warr ant ed. The re aft er , t he t rial co ur t ent er ed a n or der gr ant ing t he de fendant leave to withdraw

h i s s ec on d a

men de d p eti ti on an d to fil e an a mended first amende d pe t itio n, includ ing t he cla im of ineffect ive assist ance . T he t rial co ur t also gr ant ed t he St at e leave t o r esp ond , by mot ion, to t his n ew cla im. On January 16, 2008, in c onform

ance wi th the January

4, 2008, or der , t he defen

dant fi le d (1) a moti on f or l ea v e to r ais e a n a dd it io na l iss ue in hi s f irst am ended postconviction petition and (2) an am ended firs t ame nd ed po st co nvic t io n p et it io n r ais ing t he ine ffec t ive as sis t an ce cla im. A ttach ed to the la tt er wereaf f i da v i ts f rom Le wis, Pl an te, an d B eth Pe cc arel l i , a n as sista n t Kan e C oun ty pu blic def ender. On February 13, 2008, t he St at e filed a mot ion t o d ismi ss t he in eff ective assistance cl

ai m. On May 1, 2008, foll

owing a hear ing, t he pa rt ies, by ag re ement , c ont inued t he ca se fo r a hear ing o n t he St ate ’s moti on

to dism i ss , to b e c om

b i n ed wi th th e th i rd -s tag e ev i den

ti ar y h ea ri n g r eg ardi

n g the ne wly dis covered evi

dence. On Jul

y 24, 2008, the Stat e fi

le d its answer to t he am

ended f irst am ended po st co nvictio n pet itio n. On Novem

ber 12, 2008, at t he com

bi ned heari ng, Lewis testif

ie d that on January

15, 1996, at approxim

ately 11:30 a.m., he wen

t t o St adl er’s bus ine ss o ffice , wh ich wa s a ho me o n Ju ng els Stre et i n A

urora. He ha d kno wn S t adler for a few mo nt hs and knew t hat St adler co llecte d r ent pa y men ts at the J ung el s ad dres s f or vari ous ren tal properties. When S tadler answe red the door, Le wi s steppe d i

ns i de , pul l ed

out a gun , an d a sked f ormone y. W hen Stadler moved towar d Lewis, Le wis sh ot Stadler i

n the head. He then sea

rched the b

usi ness off ic e f or m on ey , took Stadl er ’s wal l et, whi ch was o n a t ab le, an d le ft . Le wis t es t ified t ha t he pla nne d t his on his o wn and t hat t he de fendantNo. 2—09—0088

-8-

was not present at any ti

me . On t he da y of t he mur der , Le wis wa s we ar ingbl ack pants an

d a bl ack hoodie. Afte r t he murder, whil e drivin g aro und with a friend, Lewis emptied St adler’s walle t, wiped t he fi ngerpri nts off , and threw

it o ut t he win do w. Sho rt ly after t hat , he went t o a gas st at ion and calle d his si ster’ s house. He wanted

to sp ea k w i th K l i ng el , but K

l i ng el wa s n ot the re. Le wi s d i d n ot tell hi s si ster about t he sh

oot in g at that tim

e or at any l

ater t im e. Lewi s saw K

li ngel la ter t hat night and to ld h im what happen ed. Kl in gel wanted a cut of the stolen money. Lew is te st ifi

ed t hat he we nt to trial f or th e m urder i n De cem b er 19 97 an d th at h i s a ttorn ey ad v i se d h i m n ot to spe ak

wi th anyone re gar ding the case. Lewis testified that he would not have test if ied at the defendant’s trial , because he was mainly

co ncer ned w ith his o wn cas e. Ho weve r, on February 17, 1999, he prepared an aff ida vit in dic at ing t ha t he ha d a ct ed alo ne in k illing S t ad ler an d h e s en t t he affid av it t o t he pu blic defen der’s off ic e. On cross-exam

in ation, Lewis acknowledged that he had testi fi ed at hi s own trial

on Decem

ber 9, 199 7. At t hat t ime, he d enied a ny involvement in t he mur der of S t adler . H is case ende d in a mi strial and he l ater p led gui

lty i n exch ange for a sentence of 25 years’ im pr is onme nt. Lewi s was sch edul ed t o be re leased in nine mont hs. O n re dire ct examinat ion, Lew is te st ifi ed t hat he ha d no t see n the def endan t at any tim e on the day

of the Stadl

er m urder. Pl an te te st ifi ed t hat she ha d a 1 5- year- old so n wit h t he de fendant . I n 199 6, she w as living wi th the defe ndan t, t hei r son, and the de fen da nt ’s mo t her , in Aur or a. On Ja nuar y 15, 199 6, t he defen dant was play

in g basketbal

l i n the b acky

ard with thei

r son, who was two o r three at t he t ime. The defendant’s t wo nep hew s w er e t her e a s w ell. Th e d efe nda nt had no t left the house between 10 a. m. and 12 p. m. that day. She never spo ke with t he defendant’s at t or neys. S he wa s n ever a sked

f or a sta temen t in the case a nd she was not subpoe naed. S he wou ld have test if ied on the d efendant’sNo. 2—09—0088

-9-

be ha lf had she b een aske d. She m

oved out o f the area

a couple months after the defendant’s arrest and was go ne fo r fo ur years . S he returned about t hree y ears ago. She was ma

rried to someone else. She prepared an af

fi davi t o n A ugust 22, 2006, in an

eff ort to hel p the defe

n dan t. She w ou ld be wil li ng to t estif

y a t a new trial , if

one were granted. On cr os s-e xaminatio n, Plan

te test if ie d that she nev

er spoke to any

one at the pu bli

c defender’s off ic e. Sh e d id n o t kn o w a t t o rne y Da vidKl i men t and she had n ev er sp oken

to hi m . Wh en rem in ded that h er af f i da v i t i n di ca ted th at she woul d h av e t es t ified , bu t wa s p er su ad ed no t t o “by o ne Da vid Kl i men t,” she sta ted th at sh e s poke to him on t he pho ne, not face t o fa ce. She t old at t or ney Kli ment that sh e h ad an al i bi f orthe defe

ndan t, but he to ld h

er it wasan open-an

d-shut case. Pl ante testif

ie d t ha t she ha d a lso info rmed at t o rne y Pe cc ar elli a bo ut t he alibi p r io rt o t r ial. The def endan t t estif ie d that he wa s no t involved in anywa y wit h S t ad ler ’s mur de r . He did not kno w S t adler and never admit t ed t o k ill ing St adler . P rio r t o t he da y of t he mur der , he had m et Le wis only

about two o r three tim

es. H e was

not at the Lewi s res i den

ce on the m orni ng of Jan uary 15, 1996. He was athis mom’s ho use on 7 43 F ro nt St re et in Auro ra . H e lived t her e wit h his so n, Plan te, two nephews, h

i s m other, an d hi s step f athe r. He bel ie ved that that day was Martin L

uther Kin g’s bir t hd ay a nd t ha t his n ep he ws did no t ha ve sc ho o l. Tha t morn i ng, h e pl ay ed i n the y ard wi th hi s son and nephews. He ne ver left t he yard or t he resi dence b etween the hours of 10 a.m . and 12 p. m. The defen

dant further testif

ie d that, whil

e he was in carcerat ed on ot her charges, o ffice r s c ame to sp ea k w it h him

ab out S tad

l er ’s m urder. H e c on siste

n tl y den i ed an y i n v ol v em en t. He di scussed hi s al ibi wi th att orney K

li me nt prior to t rial . On the day of trial , he asked

at t or ney Kli

ment w hy he was not presentin

g any witne sses, an

d at t o r ne y Klim ent said that he was goin g to beat the case.No. 2—09—0088

-10-

Att or ney K

li ment to ld hi

m that Lew is’s

at t o rne ys w o uld no t let Le wis t est ify. Whe n t he de fendant aske d a b out c al l i n g P l an te to test if y, atto rney K

li men t t old hi m that there was an o utst andi ng arrest wa rra n t f or P l an te a n d th at i t wou l d n ot b e ri gh t f or her to s h ow u

p i n cou rt. Atto rney Peccarelli testifi ed that she wast he de fen da nt ’s co co un se l at t r ial. Pr io rt o t r ial, she dis cussed po ssible defens es w ith t he de fendant . N ear t he t ime of t rial, t he defend ant men ti on ed Pl an te as an a libi wit nes s. An inve st iga t o r fr o m t he o ff ic e of the pub l i c def

en der i n ter v i ew ed Pl an te re gar ding t he de fen da nt ’s ca se . At t o rne y Pe cc ar elli di d n ot call Plant e t o t est ify

, be cau se she t hou ght t hat Pla nt e h ad “ba gg ag e” an d t ha t he rt es t imo ny w o uld no t ba lan ce it o ut . At t o rne y Pe cc ar elli bel ie ved that Plante ha

d be en arr ested bef

ore and possibly

had a conv

iction of a cri

me of m oral t ur pit ude, i .e. , o bst ruc t ing jus t ice . At t o rne y Pe cc ar elli fu r t he rt es t ified t ha t she an d le ad co un se l, atto rney Klim ent , ha d co nclude d t hat t he Plan te ali bi was weak an d “ agree d that a

we ak al i bi wa s n ot as good as j us t a pl ai n ac qui ttal b as ed on ev i den ce [a gai n st th e def en da n t] that wasn’t as strong as the State vi ewed i t to be.” Atto rney Pe cc ar elli a cknowl

edg ed, how ever , t hat , in hindsight , P lante ’s t est imony wo uld have contradicted

the Stat e’s wi

tnesses an d ma y have rais ed

a doubt about t he def

endan t’s guil t. Att orney Pe cc ar elli bel

ie ved that the State’s case agai nst the def

endan t was very weak. There was n

o phys ic al evi dence o reye wit ne ss t es t imo ny. The star wi tn es s, K l i n ge l , had en tered i n to an ag re em en t wi th t he Stat e. Atto rney

Pe cc ar elli t es t ified t ha t Le wis ’s at t o rne y wo uld not all ow her to speak

wit h Le wis pri ort o t rial and i

n di ca ted th at, if Lewi s were cal

le d to testify

at the defen

dant’s trial, he would “

ple ad t he f i f th.” Th erewas som

e i ndication that Lewi s would h ave testif ie d that he wa s s o lely inv o lve d in t he m urder;howe

ver, she di

d not hav e ab sol

ute kn owl edge ab out thi s. S h e d i d n ot thin k it wasNo. 2—09—0088

-11-

r ea so na ble to request a continuan ce, because

the trial court “m ade i t fa i rl y clear that [the tri

al s] we re go ingto proceed at t he sam e tim e.” Atto rney

Peccarel li

tes t ifi ed t hat she w as su rp rised by the
v er di ct. At o ne point the j ury was deadlocked and gi

ven a Primin

struction. The verdi

ct was returned ab out a ha

l f -hour l ater. The State then s

ubm i tted People’s

ex hi bi t No. 3 int o ev ide nc e. T his e xhib it was a transcri pt of Lewi s’s sworn testimony

at his own trial for St adler’s murder. At hi s own trial , Lewi s testif

ie d that he had no invo lvement in S t adler ’s de at h. Fo llowing cl osin

g argumen

ts, t he trial

court noted that under normal cir cu mst an ce s it wo uld have granted

the State ’s moti on t o dis miss t he ine ffec t ive as sis t an ce cla im bec au se t he failu r e t o ca ll Pl an te as a n a l i bi wi tnes s wa s a m

atter of tr ial strat egy. However, t he trial court not ed that , as a ma tt er of ef fi ci ency , it allowed

th e c laim t o go t o t he t hir d s t ag e w it h t he cla im bas ed o n ne wly dis covered

evi dence. The tri al

co ur t fou nd

t hat t he new t est imony of Lew is and P lante was not “the sli ghtest bi t credi bl e an d ve rge[d] on b ei

ng worthless .” The tri al

courtnoted that Lew is’s t est imony was compl

etely at odds with his own trial

t est imony and fo und t hat Lew is was o nly trying t o he lp h is fri end. Relat ivet o Pla nt e, t he t r ial c o ur t fo un d h er t es t imo ny inc r ed ible beca use it w as no t co nsist ent f rom direct to cro ss exam

in ation. Fi nal ly , the trial court noted that Avi la

and Rodri guez both put two pe o ple at t he sce ne o f the cr ime; Jennifer t est ifi ed t hat t he de fendant was wit h Lew is on t he mor ning of the murder; and the def

endan t and Lewi s stated at t hei

r bond heari

ngs that they

had “tr icked on” each other. Base d o n t he fo re go ing, t he t rial co ur t fou nd that th e n ew testi mon y of Le wis a n d P l an te was of litt le or no va lue and was “not so co nclusive in c haracter t hat it w ou ld have c hange d t he o ut co me of the tri al .” Acco rd ingly, the t rial co ur t denied t he de f en da nt’ s req ue st f or postcon

vi cti on r elie f. T he r ea ft er , t he de fen da nt filed a t imely no t ice o f ap pe al.No. 2—09—0088

-12-

The def endan t’s fi rst contention on appeal

is that t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in fa iling t o gr an t him a n ew trial b as ed on th e L ewi s af

f i da v i t. “ In Il l i n oi s, n ewl y di sc ov ered

ev i den ce wa rra n ts a new tria

l when: (1 ) it has be en disc ove re d since t he t r ial; ( 2) it is of such a character that it could n ot have been dis covered

pri or to t he t r ial b y

the exerc i se of due di l i ge nc e; (3) i

t i s m aterial to the i ss uean d n ot mer ely cum ula tive;and (4) i

t is of s uch a concl

usi ve ch aracter t hat

it will p r o ba bly ch an ge t he r es ult on retrial .” People v. Gabriel , 398 Il l . Ap p. 3d 33 2, 350 ( 2010) . The new evi den cene ed not ne ce ss ar ily

esta bli sh the defendant ’s inno ce nc e; r at he r , a n ew t r ial is wa rr an t ed if all of t he fact s and sur ro unding ci

rc um sta n ce s, i n cl udi n g th e n ew ev i den ce , w ar

ra n t cl ose r s cr uti n y to det er mine

t he gu ilt ori nn ocen ce of the def endan t. People v. Molstad, 101 Ill . 2d 128, 136 (19 84) ( Mols tad II

) . Applicat ions for a new

tri al on th e groun d of ne wl y di sc ove red ev i de nc e a re n ot l ooke d u

pon wi th f av or b y th e c our ts and m ust b e cl osel y scru tin ized. People v. Molstad, 112 Ill . App. 3d 819, 821 (1983) ( Molstad I

) . A trial court ’s denial of a post con v i ction petiti

on f oll owi ng a n evi den tia ry hear ingis reviewed f or ma ni f est error. People

v. Ortiz, 235 Il

l . 2d 319 , 333 (2 009). “

Man i f est error” is error tha

t is clearl y plai n, evi den t, and i ndi sputabl e. People v. Morgan , 212 Ill . 2d148, 155 (2 004). In ar guing t hat he is ent itled t o a new t rial, t he defend ant re lies on Molst ad II . I n Molstad

II , our supr em e court gr anted the def endan t’s request for a new trial based on n

ewl y di scovered evi dence. Molst

ad II , 1 01 I ll. 2d a t 137 . Mo lsta d had been c onvict ed o f agg ra vat ed ba t t er y a nd crim in al dam age t o pr o pe r t y. Id. at 130. Pri or to senten

ci ng, Mols tad’s l awy er f i l ed a m otion f or a new trial b as ed on th e af f i da v i ts of f our convi cted codefendan

ts and one acqui

tt ed codefen

dant, which stated that Mol stad w as n ot presen t at the sc ene of

the cri me. Id. at 132. The Molstad

II cour t found t hat the affi

davi ts qualif ied as n ewly discovered evidence because th e af f i da v i ts were compl

eted after Molstad’s c onviction an d the codefen

dants could n

ot have beenNo. 2—09—0088

-13-

ca lled t o t es t ify at Mo lst ad ’s t r ial, as t he ir t est imony wo uld have i

ncri m i na ted the m . Id. at 134-35. The Molst

ad II cou rt furt he r fo und t hat no a mou nt of d ue d ili genc e co uld have for ced t he codef en da n ts t o vio lat e t he ir fift h a men dme nt r ig h t t o avoi d se l f -i ncri m i na tion . Id. at 135 . T he Molstad II court al so found that the evi dence was

not cumul

ative , because, al

though Molstad had off ered alibi test imony at t rial, t he five new a ffi davit s we nt t o t he ult imate iss ue o f who was pr ese nt at the cri me sc ene an

d raised questions as

to the tri al

court’s j udgm en t. Id. Fin ally, the Molst

ad II co ur t fo un d t ha t t he ne wly dis covered evi

dence was

li kel y to produce a diff e ren t resul t on retrial . Id. at 135 -3 6. On r et rial, t he t rial co ur t wo uld have t o ba lance t he t est imony of a s ing le e yew it ne ss ag ain st Mo lst ad ’s de nia l o f his pr es en ce , his pa r en t s’ alib i t es t imo ny, five cod ef en da nts wh o i ns i ste d that M ol stad w asnot pr ese nt , a nd

evi dence that Mols

tad had broken up a f i ght e arl i er i n the day between the v i cti m and one of the code f

endan ts. Id. at 136. In the pres en

t case , Molst

ad II supports a det ermi

nation tha t t he def endan t has satis fi

ed t he f i rst thre e pron

gs n ece ssa ry to warrant a new trial

based on n

ewl y di scovered evi dence. See id. at 134-3 5. T he Lewi s aff

idav it was newl

y discovered evidence b ecause it was n ot executed until two years after t he de fendant ’s co nvictio n. Lew is was be ing t ried at t he sa me time as t he de fendant and no am oun t of du e d i l i gen ce cou l d h av e f orc ed Le wis to testi f

y at th e def en da n t’s trial an d v i ol ate his fifth am endm en t rig ht ag ai nst self -i ncri m i na tion . At the

evi den tia ry heari ng, Le wis t es t ified t ha t his trial cou ns el ad vi se d h i m not t o sp ea k t o an yo ne an d t ha t he wo uld ha ve as se r t ed his privi lege agai nst se l f -i nc ri m i na ti on had h e be en ca lled t o t es t ify at t he de fen da nt ’s t r ial. Fina lly, t he ev ide nc e is mat er ial, and n

ot me rely cum ula tive, b ecause the def

endan t did not present any

evi dence on h

is own be ha lf at his trial and Lewi s both averred an

d testifi ed t hat t he de fendant had no t par t icipat ed in t he
m urder.No. 2—09—0088

-14-

Howev er, we fi nd Molstad

II di sti ng ui sh ab l e on the is sue of wh

ether the newl

y di scovered evi dence was of such

a concl usi ve ch aracter t hatit w ou ld likely pro duc e a d iff er ent r es ult o n r et r ial. I n Molstad

II , the af f i dav i ts were pre sente d a f

ter th e c ode f en da nts ha d b een f oun d gu i l ty , but pr i or to their s entenci

ng. Id. at 134. Therefore, the codefen dants put themse lv

es at risk b ecause thei

r own credi bi l i ty c oul d be

a f actor i n thei r sen tenc i ng d eterm i na tions. Co nve r se ly, here, Le wis ’s affid av it was ex ec ut ed o n F eb rua ry 17 , 19 99 , ab o ut t wo yea r s a ft er Le wis pl ed gu ilt y and wa s sent enc ed. Moreov er, the trial

court noted that Lewis was s chedul ed to be release d f

r o m pr ison w ithin nine mont hs of hi s test im

ony at the evidentiary heari ng. Lewis’ s ad mis si on s, t her efo re , c ou ld have no be ari ng upon hi s ul tim ate disposi

tion or any

postco nvi

ction proceedi

ngs. See People

v. Jones , 399 I ll. App. 3d 341, 365 (2010) (disti ngui shi ng Molst ad II on thi s sa me b asis). The def

endan t argues that Lew is’s affidavit and t es t imo ny o pe ne d L ew is u p t o a p o ss ible per jury char ge. Ho weve r, in li ght of Lewis’s ul

tim ate ple a agreem

ent, it i s unl

ike ly that t he State would hav

e pursued such

a charge. Ad di t io na lly, in Molst

ad II , t he trial court did not assess the credibi li ty of the test im ony provided by the new witnes ses . In the pres en t case , however, Lew

i s testi f i ed at the ev

i den tia ry hear ingand t he t r ial c o ur t fo un d h is t es t imo ny “no t t he slig ht es t bit cr ed ible” an d t ha t it “ ve rge [d] on being wort hless.” The tria l c ourt noted that Lewis was i mpe ached wit h his statements at hi s own t r ial, wher e he ha d t est ifi

ed t hat he was not in

volv ed i n Stadler’ s m

urder. Additionally

, the trial court noted that t he testim

ony of dis in terested witnesses

supported a det ermi

nation tha t t he de fendant was pr ese nt at t he sc ene of the m urder. Despite Lewis’s testim ony tha t he h ad not seen the def

endan t at all on t he da y of t he mur der , R od rigu ez t est ifi ed t hat she sa w t he de fendant and Le wi s tog ether on t he m orni ng of the m urder. A ddi

ti ona l l y , A vi l a te sti f i ed tha t sh e s aw two pe ople ru

nn i ng f rom t he di recti on of Stadler’s

rental of fi ce at ab o ut t he t ime o f t he mur der . T he t rial co ur t also not ed t heNo. 2—09—0088

-15-

exch angein whi ch the def endan t and Lewi s said that they had “ tricked o n” each other. O n these bases, t he t r ial c o ur t fo un d t ha t Le wis wa s no t cr ed ible and t hat he wa s just t ryingto hel p hi s f rien d. Cred i b i l i ty determ i na tions su ch as th i s are pr op er ly m

ade by the t rier of fac t , a nd we ha ve no ba sis in th e rec ord

f or s ec on d- gu es si

n g th e tr i al cou rt’ s j udgm

en t. See Gabriel , 398 Ill . App. 3d at 352 (d istingu ishing Molst

ad II on the ba si s tha t the tri al courtha d n ot “ as se ss [ed

] th e c red i bi l i ty of t he testi m ony provi ded b y the n ew wi tnes ses ”). Thus, we agree that Lewi s’s testim ony would not li

kel y c han ge the resul

t o n retrial . W e acknowl edge t hat t he “mos t cr ucial and deva st at ing” t est imony to t he defendant’s case was Kli ngel’s t est imony that the defe

ndan t had adm itted to murderi

ng Stadler an

d taking h is mone y (s ee Gonzalez I , slip op. at 17), but t ha t Kli ngel had testif ie d in exch ange f or cert ai n concess ions

from the Stat e. We further ac knowl ed ge t ha t t he jur y de liber at ed fo r11 ho ur s a nd , at o ne po int , ind ica t ed t ha t it co uld not rea ch a verd i ct. H owe ve

r, “ [a] n a l l eg ati on of ne wl y di sc ove red ev i de nc e of inno ce nc e is not intend ed t o q ues t ion t he st re ngt h of t he Stat e’s cas e. An al le gation of n

ewl y di scovered evi dence of i n n oce n ce se ek s to est ablish the defen dant’s actual

in nocence of

the crim es f or which he h as been tried and con vi cted.” People v. Washington , 171 I ll. 2 d 4 75 , 49 5 ( 19 96 ) ( Mc Mo rr o w, J. , sp ec ially conc urri ng) . Al thou gh new evi

dence need not necessaril

y establ ish t he de fen da nt ’s inno ce nc e, it must establi sh a b asis f or cl oser s cruti

ny of the def

endan t’s gu i l t. Molst ad II , 1 01 I ll. 2d a t 136 . I n t he pr ese nt case, we can

not say that the def

endan t has m et that bar. Lew is ’s tes timony was not so co nclusive as t o t he defen dant’s al le ged actual i nn ocence to establ i sh

a b asis f or a retrial . Al

though Le wis aver re d and t est ifi

ed t hat he ac t ed a lone, ot her t est imony at tr ia l i ndicatedt hat Lew is and t he defend ant wer e t og et her on t he mo rning o f t he mur de r . As s uc h, if Le wis wa s t he o ne wh o ac t ua lly comm itted the murder, i

t is l ike ly that t he def

endan t was with h

im an d partici

pated in the crim e.No. 2—09—0088

-16-

Ac co r di ng ly, we ca

n n ot s ay th at the tri

al cou rt’ s dec i si on, f i nd i ng tha t the ne w e vi de nc e di d n

ot warrant a new trial, was m ani festly erro neous. The defendant’s se con

d c onte nti on o n a pp ea l is t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in d en ying his c laim based on t he alle ge d in effe ct ive as sis t an ce o f t r ial c o un se l in fa iling t o ca ll Plante as an al

ib i wi tness. At the outset , we note t hat the St ate argu es that , based o n this cour t’s rem and order, the tri

al court was l i m i ted to holdi

ng a n evi den tia ry he ar ing r eg ar din g t he Le wis affid av it an d t he t r ial c o ur t did not have t he au t hor ity t o a llow t he de fendant t o a mend his po st co nvictio n pet itio n. On rem and, a trial courthasno a

uthori ty to ac t be yond the sc opeof the m andate. People v. Abraham , 324 Ill . App. 3d 26, 30 (2 001 ). If t he dire ct ion o f the mandat e is t o p ro cee d in co nfor mity with t he o pinion, t hen t he opi ni on must be consul

ted i n d eterm i ni ng the appropriatecou

rs e of action. People ex rel. Bernardi
v. City of Highland

Park, 225 Il

l . App. 3d 47 7, 4 82 (1 99 2) . Th e en ti reopi n i on i s rel ev an t. Abraham , 324 Ill . App. 3d at 30. “If spe cific direc t ions a re not given, but t he r emand inst ru ct ions aregen eral

i n n atu re , ** * th

en th e l owe r c our t sh oul d e x am i n e th e op i ni onand determi

ne wh at further proceedin

gs would b e consi stent with the opi nion.” Bernardi , 225 Ill . App. 3d at 482. I t is ax io mat ic t hat a r eviewing c ou rt t hat issues a manda t e has t he po wer t o e nfor ce t he manda t e and determi ne wh ether there has b een com

pli ance. In the prese nt ca se, the m

andate s tated, i

n ge neral term s: “ [I] n accordance wi th the views expresse d in t he at t ac he d D ec isio n the j udg men t of the tria l court i s Vacated a

nd R em anded.” Ac co r di ng ly, the orde

r ha d to be c onsu

l ted. In the or der o ur mandate was also general ; we stated that t he ca se w as “vac at ed a nd r emande d fo r a n evident iary hear ing on the de f en da nt’ s p ostc onv

i cti on pet i tion .” Gonz

alez II , sli p op. at 7. In the body

of our order , we noted t hat the heari ng ha d t o address wh ethe

r, f or th e p urp ose s of

the newly

-discovered-evidence cl

aim , “Lewis ’s aff

idav it [was]No. 2—09—0088

-17-

of such c oncl

usi ve character that i

t woul d prob ab l

y change th e res

ul t on retrial .” Id. However, we did not ot her wise d icta t e t he scope o f t he ev ide nt iar y hea r ing . T hu s, t he t r ial c o ur t ’s ac t io n in allowing t he de fendant t o a mend his po st co nvictio n pet itio n and t o p re sent t he new claim at t he ev ide nt iar y hea r ing did no t ex ce ed o ur man da t e. We will t her efo re add re ss t he merit s o f the cla im. To estab l i sh

a cl ai m of i ne f f ecti ve ass i stan ce, t he def endan t must show t hat co unsel’s performa nce fel l b el ow an obj ective standard of reasonable ness and that ther e i s a r ea so na ble pr ob ab i l i ty t hat co unse l’s deficient perf orma nc e prejudiced th

e def endan t. People v. A lbanese , 104 I ll. 2d 5 04, 525 (1 984 ). The defend ant ’s failure t o mak e t he r equ isite s how ing o f eithe r d eficient pe rf orm an ceorsu fficie nt pr eju dic e d efe at s t he ine ffec t ive ne ss cla im. People v. Palmer, 162 Ill . 2d 465, 475 (1 994). T r ial c o un se l’s de cis io n w he t he rt o pr es en t a p ar t icu lar wit ne ss is wit hin t he r ea lm of strategic ch oi ce s that are ge ne ral l y not s ub j ec t to attac

k on the grou nds of i ne f f ec ti ve ne ss of co un se l. People

v. Tate , 305 Ill . App. 3d 607, 612 ( 1999) . Er rors i n strate gy do n ot co n sti tute i ne f f ecti ve ass i stan ce of coun sel . People v. Krankel, 131 Il l . Ap p. 3d 88 7, 892 ( 1985) . In t he pr es en t ca se , t he de fen da nt ha s fa ile d to es tabli sh h is cl ai m of in eff ective assi stance. T he r ec o r d d emo nst r at es t ha t t he de cis io n o f de fen se co un se l, no t t o ca ll Plante as an al

ib i wi tness, was strategic. We n

ot e that Strickland v. Washington , 4 66 U .S . 6 68, 690 -9 1 ( 198 4) , p ro t ect s t he “deci sions”

an d “ j udg men ts” of cou ns el ; “ stra teg i c c hoi ce s m ad e af ter th oroug h i nv es ti ga ti on of law and fac t s r ele va nt t o pla us ible o pt io ns a r e v irt ua lly unc ha l l engeabl e *** .” A

t the ev i den tia ry heari ng, atto rney Pe cc ar elli t es t ified t ha t , pr io rt o t he de fen da nt ’s t r ial, she an d t he de fen da nt dis cu ss ed his alibi wit ne ss an d t he pu blic d efe nd er ’s o ffice inve st iga t ed t he alibi. Atto rney Peccarelli

testifi ed that she ch ose not t o call

Plan te, because Plante had “ some b aggage” and h er purport ed

t rial t est imony co uld not “bal

ance out the baggage

t hat she c ame wit h.” Att or ney Pec car elli f ur t her t est ifi

ed t hat sheNo. 2—09—0088

-18-

and l ead counsel , att orney K

li me nt, had concl uded that the Plan

te ali bi was weak

and “ agreed that a weak alibi was not as goo d as j ust a plai n acqui tt al based on ev

ide nce [agai nst the def

endan t] t hat wasn’t as stro ng as the Stat e viewed it to be.” As such, both att orneys agreed that the best defense was to f ocus on the weakn

ess of the State’ s ca se a

nd to av oid off eri ng a weak al i bi . Moreov er, because of P lante ’s r elat ionship w ith t he de fen dant, she l

ike ly would not have been

considered credible . See People

v. Barcik , 365 Ill . App. 3d 183, 192-93 ( 2006) ( because of h er re l ati on sh i p to t he defendant, the de fendant’s fi ancée likel

y would n ot have b een considered a credib le wi tness) (a nd casesci ted therei n). As su ch , be caus e the

record demon strate s th

at th e dec i si on n ot to ca l l Pl an te to t es t ify was a m atter of reasonab le

trial strategy, the defen

dant’s cl ai m o f in eff ective assistance ne ces sari l y f ail s. Tate , 3 05 I ll. App. 3d a t 612 . T he fact that att orney Pecc arell

i, i n hi ndsi ght, may ha ve ha nd led t he t r ial d iffer en t ly is not an i ndi cation of i nc omp etence. See People v. Elder , 73 I ll. Ap p. 3d 19 2, 203 ( 1979) . For al l of the f oreg oi ng rea sons, th

e j udg men t of t he cir cu it co ur t o f Ka ne Co un t y is aff irm ed. Af fi rmed.