1 Si xth Di vi si on June 11, 2010 No. 1-08- 2024
THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci

rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) Coo k Count y, Ill in ois. ) ) ) No. 90 CR 11979 -80, ) 90 CR 11982- 83, 90 CR ) 11986-9 1, and 90 CR v. ) 660648. ) TONY ANDERSON, ) Ho no r ab le ) James B . Linn, Def endan t-App el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g.

JUSTICE JO SEPH GORDO N del i vered the opi ni on of the court: Defend ant , T ony Ande rso n, a ppe als fro m the c ircu it co ur t ’s de nial of his pet itio n for leave to f i l e a succ es si ve pos tcon vi cti on p eti ti on p urs ua nt to s ec ti on 1 22- 1(f

) of the Pos t-Con

vi cti on He ar ing Ac t ( 72 5 I LC S 5 /1 22
- 1( f) ( We st 20 04 ) )
. He co nt en ds t ha t t he cir cu it co ur t er r ed wh en it f oun d th at h e f ai l ed to es tab l i sh ei th er a f re estan di n g c l ai m of ac tual i n n oce n ce or th e req ui si te “cau se a nd pr ejudice ,” which wo uld p er mit him to pr oc eed wit h his succ essive p et itio n. Fo r t he reasons that follow, we di sagree. I. BACKG ROUND We b egi n by noting that the compl

ex procedural h

is to ry of this case. On A

pril 18, 1990, defend ant was ar re st ed o n aut omo bile theft char ges and t ake n t o Ar ea 2 head qua rt er s, w her e he was questi oned by

Detectives Mic

hael McDerm ot t and Tony M aslanka. There, def endan t made aNo. 1-08- 2024

1 We briefly summarize t he evide nce p re sent ed a t t hat pr et rial hear ing as a det ailed ac co unt is unnecessary to t he reso lution of t his appeal and i s already avail able i n this appellate cou rt ’s dec ision in Peop l e v . A

nd ers on , 375 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 12 1, 123- 24 (20 07). 2 stat emen t impl icatin g hi msel f i n num erou s offen

ses comm itted in March and A

pril 1990. As a
res ul t, de f en da nt wassu bs eq ue ntl y i nd i cte d on ove r 10 0 c ha rge s i n 1 3 di f f ere nt c as esi n C ook Cou n ty . In ca se No. 90 CR

11 98 4, d ef en da n t proce eded

wi th a b en ch trial an d w as f oun d g ui l ty of atte m pte d m urder, arm

ed vi ol en cean d a rm ed robbe ry an d s en ten ce d to 3 c onc

urren t term s of 25 ye ars’ i

mprisonm ent. In case No. 90 CR 11985, defe ndan t pro ceeded wi

th a jury trial and was convi cted of armed robb ery an

d sentence d to 25 ye ars’ i mprisonm ent wi th the sentence

to run con cu rre n t to the s en

ten ce i m pos ed i n ca se No. 90 CR

11 98 4. D ef

en da n t pl eade d g ui l ty to charges in 11 remai ni ng cases, which are the subject of this appeal . These cases incl ude case Nos. 90 CR 11979, 90 CR 11980, 90 CR 11982, 90 CR 11983, 90 CR 11986, 90 CR 11987, 90 CR 11988 , 90 CR

11989 , 90 CR

11990 , 90 CR

11991 and 90 C R 660 648. Motion to Suppress Confession Pr io rt o de fen da nt ’s gu ilt y ple as , William H ee na n, de fen da nt ’s o r igin al t r ial c o un se l,
m ove d to suppres s def

en da nt’ s i nc ul pa tory sta tem en ts, a l l eg i ng tha t the y were th e p roduct of police coercion. A

t a pret rial

heari ng on that motion, def

endan t t estif ie d that Detect iv

es McDerm ot t and Masl

anka ph ys ic ally coerced hi

m i nto confessi

ng. 1 Sp ecifically, defend ant
as serted tha t De tec ti ve Mc Derm ott plac ed a g un to hi s h ead a nd threa ten ed tha t he woul d “ bl ow [hi s] dam n brai ns out” if he di d not confess. Def

endan t also averred that Detective Maslanka j ab be d h i m i n th e c he st, r i b, an d b ac k w i th h i s n i gh t sti ck . Al thou gh he coul d n ot sa y exac tl y howNo. 1-08- 2024

3

man y t imes he wa s ja bbe d, de fen da nt es t imat ed it wa s “o ve r12 t imes , ” b ec au se he wa s c rying in pain . Defendant also stated t hat no o ne ever advi sed hi m of h is Mi randa right s and t hat dur ing t he in terview, h e m ade seve n requests f

or permi ssion to ma

ke a teleph

one call b ut was denied each t ime. Bo t h Det ect ives McD er mot t and M aslank a de nied t hat any co er cion t oo k plac e and test if ied that although they repeated ly advi sed defendan

t o f h is Mi randa ri gh ts h e, at n o poi n t,
re que st ed a n at t or ney or indicat ed t hat he wishe d t o c eas e t he inte rview . Aft er hear ing all of t he evidence, the circuit cour t denied defen dant’s motion to suppress his i ncrim in ating statements, f i nd i ng tha t the y were g i ve n “f ree l y an d vol un tari l y wi thou t coerci on or threa t or com pul si on of any kin d.” In doin

g so, t he court found that based on the totali ty of ev ide nce, def endan t “was adv i sed of h i s ri ghts num erous ti mes” and was “n ot in an y way threa tene d or ab

use d.” Th

e court al so noted th

at “th e ev i den ce we choose to acce

pt *** [is] the

testi mony of the pol

i ce of f i cers i ndi cati ng th at he wasat no ti

me ab use d or ph

y sical l y threa tene d.” Guilty Pleas On A ugust 9, 1991, defendan

t’s newl y retai ned counsel

, Thomas Hof

fa, represen

ted defen dant as he pl

eaded guilty

to charges i

n the 11 case s, in

cl udin g: one count of fi

rst degree murder (i n case No. 90 CR 11979), t wo counts o f attempted f irst degree m

urder (in c ase Nos. 90 CR 11983 and 90 CR 11986 ), eight cou nts of armed robbery (i n case Nos. 90 CR 117 80, 90 CR 119 87, 90 C R 11 988 , 9 0 CR 119 89, 90 C R 11 990 , 9 0 CR 119 91, and 9 0 CR 660 648 ), and o ne cou nt of atte m pte d e sc ap e (i

n c as e N o. 90CR

119 82) . The Sta

te i nd i ca ted tha t i n e xc ha ng e f or defen dant’s pl eas of gui lty to the aforem

entione d charges, i

t would recomm

end a 50-y

ear sentence for fi

rst deg ree murder (in case No. 90 CR 119 79); 30-year sentences for att empted fi rstNo. 1-08- 2024

4

degree m urder (in c ase Nos. 90 CR 11983 and 90 C R 11986); 30-y ear sentence s f

or armed robbery (in case Nos. 90 CR 11980, 90 CR 11987, 90 CR 11988, 90 CR 11989, 90 CR 11990, 90 CR 119091 and 90 CR 660648); an d a 5-yea r sentence f

or at tempted escape (i

n case No. 90 CR 11982), with al

l of those sentences

to run concurrentl

y (b ut consecutivel

y to the sentence s im posed in case Nos. 90 CR 11984 and 90 CR 11985, wherei n def endan t was tried and conv

icted of othe r cri mes). The St at e t hen made t he fo llowing fac t ual su bmissions wit h re spe ct t o e ach o f the aforem entione d guil

ty pleas. Wi

th respect to case No. 90 CR 11979, in whi ch def endan t pleaded gu ilt y t o firs t de gr ee mur de r , t he St at e p r o ffer ed t ha t if t he ca se we nt t o t r ial t he ev ide nc e w o uld sho w t hat on M ar ch 30 , 1 990 , t og et her wit h ano t her black male, defend ant went t o a n apa rt ment at 73 13 So ut h G r ee n S t r ee t , in Ch ica go . Whe n t he ap ar t men t do o rwa s o pe ne d b y t he vic t im, Leonard Cox, def

endan t said “ Nobody m

ove,” and then

fi red two shots from a

.25-cali ber ha nd gu n a t Co x, ca us ing his d ea t h. E yew it ne ss es wh o we r e p r es en t du r ing t he inc ide nt wo uld ide ntif y de fen dant as the sh

oot er in open court. The evi

dence would further sh

ow that when defend ant was subs equ ent ly arre st ed o n Apr il 18, 1 990 , t he sa me .2 5- caliber ha ndgu n use d in t he shooting of C ox was retrieved from hi s person. On A

pril 19, 1990, defenda

nt was identif

ie d as t he sho ot er in a lineup, wher eup on, aft er being ad vised o f his right s, he co nfessed t o p ar t icipat ing i n the sh ootin g. In c ase No . 9 0 CR 119 80, defend ant plead ed g uilty t o t hre e co unt s o f armed ro bber y. As a f ac tua l basis f or thi s p l ea , th e Sta

te p rof f ere d the f ol l owi ng ev i de nc e: A

t ab out 12 :30

p.m., on Ma rc h 30 , 19 90 , tog eth

er wi th an ac com pl i ce , de f en da n t ap pr oach ed th e v i cti m s, Vi rg ette Bran dt,No. 1-08- 2024

5

Ma t t ie C ep hu s a nd De met r ius Ce ph us , in fr o nt o f t he ir a pa r t men t at 62 15 So ut h Wa ba sh S t r ee t in Chicag o. Defend ant t hen plac ed a handg un o n Bra ndt ’s nec k and for ced his way into t he apa rt ment, wher eup on he t oo k ap pr oximat ely $250 and misce llaneou s jewe lry fro m the occupa nts. Th e vi cti m s later iden

tif i ed de f endan t in a l i ne up an d woul d iden tif y hi m i n ope n c ourt i f the c ase procee ded to tri al
. In case No . 90 C R 1198 2, de fendant pleaded gu il ty to att empted e scape. The St ate ’s prof f er e sta bl i sh ed tha t at a bou t 3:0 7 a .m ., on

A pri l 20, 199 0, def

en da nt wasi n c us tody on pen di ng f elony charges . Af

ter def endan t reques ted a tel eph one c al l , he wasmoved

to a secu re area of the poli

ce station, whereupon h

e attempted to escape b

y “ tryi ng to knock down and run pas t a nu m ber of p oli

ce of f i cers ,” al l of w hom would iden

tif y def endan t in open court. In c ase No . 9 0 CR 119 83, defend ant plead ed g uilty t o a t t empt ed firs t deg re e mur der . As a fac tual basi s, the Stat e proff

ered that at about 2:40 p.m. on Apri l 7, 1990, toget her wi

th an
acc omp l i ce, de f

endan t wal ked i nto “ Pot-O-Gol d Li

quors” l ocated a t 8658 South

As hl and Street. Defe ndan t’s accompl

ic e wal ked up to t he counter “pretendi ng to make a purch

ase,” and then pulled o ut a hand gun a nd as ked t he vict im, Jeane t t e Laz zar ot t o, t o g ive him m one y. When t he vic t im re fus ed , a s t rug gle en su ed be t we en t he t wo . Du r ing t he st rug gle , de fen da nt pu lled o ut his
ow n handg un, app ro ache d t he vict im and sho t her in the ba ck o f the neck , c aus ing her t o be hosp i tal ized f or a peri od of e i ght da

y s. The wi

tnes ses would iden

tif y def endan t in open court. In c ase No . 9 0 CR 119 86, defend ant plead ed g uilty t o a t t empt ed firs t deg re e mur der . As a fac tual basi s f

or t hi s pl ea, the Stat e proff ered that at about 4:30 p.m. on March 17, 1990, to gether with an

accompl ic e, defen dant approached the vi

ctim, Jerome W

righ t, in an alle y l ocatedNo. 1-08- 2024

6

at 75 43 So ut h I ng les ide Ave nu e in Ch ica go , pu lled o ut a . 25
- ca liber ha nd gu n a nd sho t t he vic t im in “t he sid e. ” T he vic t im at t emp t ed t o flee bu t de fen da nt pu r su ed him an d s ho t him o nc e a ga in in the stomach. Def

endan t t hen fl ed the scen

e of the cri

me . When

defen dant was later apprehended, a .25-cali ber han dgun was recovered f

rom his person. The vi

ctim ide ntif ie d defen dant in a lin eup as the sh ooter and woul d do so i

n open c ourt if

the c ase procee ded to tri al
. In case No. 9 0 CR 11987, d efendan t pleaded guil

ty to two count s of armed robbery. As a factual basis f or t hi s pl ea, the Stat e i

ndicated that t he f

oll owing e vi dence would be i

ntroduced at t rial ag ainst defend ant : At app ro ximately 5: 20 p .m. on Ap ril 8, 1 990 , t og et her wit h co defend ant Rob er t A l l en, de f

en da n t en tered a store l oca ted at 1 35 8 W

est 95 th St re et in Chicago and pr et ende d t o mak e a p ur chas e. Bo t h defend ant and Allen t hen pu lled ou t handg uns a nd app ro ache d t he t wo cas hiers, Al Chheda and G aysene H ende rso n, a nd while br andishing t he han dguns dem

anded m oney . Af ter t aki ng m oney from the cash regi

sters, defen

dant and A

ll en l ed the v i cti m s to the b ack room

and ordere d them

to remai n there un til they l ef t the store. Def endan t was s ubs eque ntl y arrested an

d iden tif i ed i n a l i ne up by Ch he da as one of the rob bers. Aft er ha vin g b ee n a dv ise d o f his r ig ht s, de fe nd an t ad mit t ed t o his pa r t icip at io n int he r o bbe ry. I n c as e N o . 90 CR 11 98 8, de fen da nt ple ad ed gu ilt y t o ar med r o bbe ry. A s a fac t ua l ba sis for def endan t’s ple a the State pro ff

ered that at about 6 p.m. on March 23, 1990, defenda

nt and an
ac com pl i ce en tered a g as sta ti on l oca ted at 2 92 8 East 8 7th

St r ee t in Ch ica go , an d w hile bra ndi sh i ng h andguns an

noun ced a robb ery . Def

endan t’s w eapon

wasa .25-c al

i ber ha ndg un. Defend ant t hen t oo k $2 00 a nd so me cigar et t es fro m tw o g as st at ion at t enda nt s, M ar vin Hill and Ro ch elle Hu er t a, be fo r e fo r cin g t he m int o a r ea rr o o m. Up o n d efe nd an t ’s ar r es t , t he sa meNo. 1-08- 2024

7

we ap o n u se d in t he cr ime w as r ec o ve r ed fr o m his p er so n. Bo t h w it ne ss es ide nt ified de fen da nt in a l i ne up an d woul d iden tif y hi m i n open c ourt if

the c ase procee ded to tri al
. In ca se No. 90 CR

11 98 9, d ef en da n t pl eade d g ui l ty to ar med rob b er y . Th e S tate pr offer ed t hat t he evide nce w ou ld sho w t hat at abo ut 4: 20 p .m. on M ar ch 8, 199 0, defend ant
en tered a store l oca ted at 1 00 8 East 7 6th

Street , made a purch

ase, then displ ay

ed a .25-cali

ber ha ndg un a nd a nn ounc ed a rob

bery . Def endan t poin ted h i s gun at Gloria Hone cker, a

store
em pl oyee , cocke d the w ea

pon an d de man de d m one y . De f en da nt took $14 9 a nd som e f ood st amps a nd t hen fled. When de fendant was subs equ ent ly arre st ed he was ident ifi ed in a lineup by several witne sses wh

o were present durin

g the in ci dent and wh

o would ide

ntif y de fen dant in open cou rt i f the ca se proc ee de d to tri

al . De f en da nt a l so c onf es se d to th

i s cri me a f ter b ei ng ad vi se d of his ri ghts
. In case No. 90 CR 11990, def endan t pleaded gui

lty to armed robb ery. The

Stat e’s proff

er showed that on April 13, 1990, toget her wi th an accom

pli ce, defen dant entered a liquor store, displayed a . 25- caliber ha ndgu n and a nnou nced a r obbe ry. D efenda nt for ced t he vict im, Car oline By rd, into the bathroom and b egan to tear her clothes off . When a customer entered the store, defend ant and his a cco mplice wer e fo rc ed t o flee, t aking w ith t hem app ro ximately $40 0 and “miscellaneou s jewe lry” fro m the vict im. Defend ant was late r ide nt ifi ed in a lineup by all of the wit ne ss es pr es en t du r ing t he inc ide nt , an d a ft er be ing ad vise d o f his r igh t s, he co nfe ss ed t o his i nv olv em en t in the cri me. In c ase No . 9 0 CR 119 91, defend ant plead ed g uilty t o t wo co unt s o f armed ro bber y. As the f ac tua l basis f or thi s p l ea , th e Sta

te p rof f ere d the f ol l owi ng ev i de nc e: A t ab out 7: 05 p .m ., onNo. 1-08- 2024

8

A pri l 4, 1 99 0, d

ef en da n t an d a n ac com pl i ce en tered a b ea uty sa l on l oca ted at 1 85 5 East 8 7th Street “un

der the pretext o f m

aki ng a purchase.” Af

ter about fi

ve m in utes insi de the store, defend ant displayed a . 25- caliber ha ndgu n and a nnou nced a r obbe ry. D efenda nt for ced all the patrons to li e down on the ground an

d then pr oceeded to take m

oney and j ewel

ry f rom th em . Defend ant t hen plac ed a gun t o t he o wner ’s hea d and or der ed he r t o o pen t he sa fe fro m which he t o o k a n u nd isc lo se d s um. T he
. 25
- ca liber ha nd gu n w as r ec o ve r ed o n d efe nd an t ’s pe r so n u po n his arrest. Seven wi

tnesses posi

tivel y i dentif ie d defen dant and an

ei ghth tentative ly

ide ntif ie d defend ant as t he pe rp et ra t or . Aft er being ad vised o f his right s, d efenda nt gave a st at ement ad mit t ing his inv o lve men t in t he r o bbe ry. Fi nal ly , in case No. 90 CR 660648 , defendant also pl eaded guil ty to armed robbery. As a f ac tua l basis f or thi s p l ea , th e Sta

te p rof f ere d the f ol l owi ng ev i de nc e: A

t ab out 1: 17 p .m ., on April 17, 1990, toget her wi th an accom

pli ce, defen dant entered a Clark gas station l ocated at 13 01 W est 12 7th

St re et in Calumet Par k, bra ndishing a . 25- caliber ha ndgu n. D efenda nt led t he victim s, Randy Stefani and Steven

Muranski, to the off

ic e, where he h

andcuf fed them to a pi pe whi le hi s accompl

ic e too k mone

y f rom the cash

register and saf

e. The wi tnesses l ater identifi

ed def endan t in a l i ne up an d woul d iden tif y hi m i n ope n c ourt if the c ase procee ded to tri al . Furth er, af ter be i ng a dvi sed of h i s ri ghts , def endan t conf ess ed to his i

nv olv em en t in thi s robbery . Fol l owi ng ad moni sh men ts b y the tri al cou rt, a nd de f en da nt’ s state men

t tha t he ha d n ot been t hre at ened or co er ced into plead ing gu ilty, de fendant waived his right t o a jury t rial and ent er ed g uilty pleas t o t he afo re mentio ned c har ges . T he circ uit co ur t acc ept ed t he plea s and
sen tenc ed de f

endan t in acc ordance wi

th the pl ea a greem en t.No. 1-08- 2024

9 Motion to Vacate Guilty Pleas/Fir st Postconviction P

etition On No vember 1 , 1 991 , d efenda nt moved t o va cat e his gu ilty pleas in ea ch o f the for ego ing 11 cases, argui

ng that he di

d not understand the pl ea agreem ent, the nature of the charges , or t hat the potential

sentence s could run

consecutiv

el y. Def endan t also argued that hi s atto rney had “co er ced ” him into plead ing gu ilty by telling him t hat if he did no t do so , he wo uld likely get t he de ath pen al ty . O n De cem b er 17 , 19 91 , the c i

rc ui t cou rt sua sp onte

in dic ated that it would treat defen dant’s m ot ion as a postconvi ction petition because , as a m ot ion, i t was untim

el y as i t was fi led 30 days after defendant had entered his pl eas of guil

ty. The cour t t hen went on to dism iss de fen da nt ’s po st co nvic t io n p et it io n, find ing t ha t his c laims we r e “ sp ur io us an d w it ho ut ba sis in l aw an d f act.” In doi ng s o, the court n

oted that de f

endan t had be en adv i sed “a s to each

and every cas e t he po ssible pena lties, t he nat ur e o f the char ges , t he fact ual bas is for eac h cas e, ” and “at no tim e i ndicated any

hesi tation.” Defe ndan t appealed the ci

rcuit court’s dism

is sal of his petiti on, arguin

g that it was i m pr ope rl y di sm i ss ed wi th out a n ev i den ti ar y h ea ri n g m oreth an 30 da y s af ter i ts f i l i n g. T h e S tate
co nfessed er ro r. On Ma y 4, 1 992 , w e r emande d t he ca use so lely f or app oint ment o f co unse l and a heari ng to deter mi

ne wh ether the alle gations i

n def endan t’s petition we

re fri volous. On rem

and, the ci rcu i t cou rt rul ed tha t the cl ai m s rai se d i

n d ef en da nt’ s p eti ti on c oul d have b een r

ai se d on dir ec t ap pe al a nd we r e t hu s fr ivo lo us an d p at en t ly wit ho ut mer it
. De fen da nt did no t ap pe al t his di sm i ssa l
. Second Postconviction P etition Instead, on April 28, 2000, def endan t file d a si ngle pro se pos tcon

vi cti on p eti ti onNo. 1-08- 2024

10

encompassi

ng all 11 cases to which h e pleaded guil

ty (in cludi ng case Nos. 90 CR 11 979, 90 CR 11980, 90 CR 11982, 90 CR 11983, 90 CR 11986, 90 CR 11987, 90 CR 11988, 90 CR 11989, 90 CR 11990, 90 CR 11991 an d 90 CR 660648). In that petition, def endan t alleged that he had b een de pri v ed of ef f ec ti v e a ss i sta n ce of cou n se l wh en cou n se l “ coe rc ed” h i m to pl ead g ui l ty through repea ted statem

en ts that i f he procee ded to tri al , he

would rece i

ve the death pen al ty. De f en da nt a l so a rgued tha t cou ns el wa s i ne f f ec ti ve f or f ai l i ng to f i l e a ny moti ons , an

d f or appe ari ng d run k i n c ourt on the

day of h i s gui l ty p l eas . On

May 16, 200 0, the

ci rcui t court dis miss ed de fen da nt ’s se co nd pe t it io n a s u nt imely a nd fr ivo lo us . On Ma r ch 19 , 20 02 , we up he ld the di sm i ss al of de f en da nt’ s p eti ti on, noti ng tha t de f en da nt’ s c l ai m s of i ne f f ec ti ve as sista nc e of
co uns el w er e ba rr ed by t he d o ct rine o f res judicatabe ca us e “ ev en t ho ug h t he y we r e c o uc he d in terms of i nef fecti ve ass is tance of counsel

, they [were] i

dentic al in substanc e to such clai

ms rais ed [and rej ected] in de fen

dant’s origi

nal petition.” Peop l e v . A

nd ers on , No. 1- 00-2338 (2002) (un pub l i shed order

pursuan t to Suprem

e Court Ru

l e 23). Third Postconviction Pe tition On De ce mbe r9, 20 04 , de fen da nt filed his t hir d s uc ce ss ive po st co nvic t io n p et it io n a ga in challen gin g all 11 of his guil ty pleas (i ncl uding case Nos. 90 CR 11979, 90 CR 11980, 90 CR 11982, 90 CR 11983, 90 CR 11986, 90 CR 11987, 90 CR 11988, 90 CR 11989, 90 CR 11990, 90 CR 11991 and 90 CR 660 648). In that p etition, defendant all eged that hi s plea was m

ade as a resul t o f pol ic e coercion an

d that he m

ade his i ncri mi natin g statement at Area 2 vi

olen t crim es as a resul t o f tortur e i

nf li cted by Area 2 an

d Area 3 detectiv

es. Def endan t specif ic ally ide ntif ie d Det ect ives McD er mot t and M aslank a as having co er ced a co nfessio n fro m him. Ac co rd ing t o t heNo. 1-08- 2024

2 As shal l be di scussed furt her below, a review of the p ro ff er o f the St ate at d efendant’s guil ty plea heari

ng revea ls that defenda

nt made in crim in ating c onfes si ons onl

y i n 6 of the 11 cases he pl eaded guil

ty to , incl uding, case Nos. 90 CR 1197 9, 90 CR 1198 7, 90 CR 1198 9, 90 CR 11990 , 90 CR

11991 and 90 C R 660 648. 11 petition, Det ective McDermott held a gun to defendan t’s head and threat ened to “bl ow [his] bra ins ou t ” if he did no t sign a c onfe ssio n. D et ect ive Maslank a t hen r epe at edly jabbed d efenda nt wit h his nights t ick in t he bac k and ches t . D efenda nt st at ed t hat as a re sult of t hese t act ics, he
ma de a statemen

t im pli catin g hi ms el f i n va rious cri me s, in cl udin g several of the cri me s to which he pl ea de d g ui lt y. 2 Also, in his pet itio n, d efenda nt aga in cont ende d t hat co unse l “coe rc ed” him i nt o p leading guilt y to t he cr imes to which he c onfe ssed by telling defe ndant t hat if he did no t plead guilt y he
wo uld re ce ive t he d ea t h pe nalt y. D efe nda nt fur t her ar gu ed t hat in vio lat io n o f Bra dy v. Ma ryland , 373 U .S. 83, 10L. Ed. 2 d 215, 8 3 S. Ct. 119 4 (196 3), the Stat e fai le d to dis cl ose to hi

m that Detectives Maslanka an

d McDerm

ot t had been

accused of torture by other defen dants and that t her e we re numer ou s inst ance s o f simi lar p olice a buse at Area 2 and Area 3 und er t he co mmand of J on Bu rge. On Ja nuar y 4, 2 005 , t he circ uit co ur t dismissed d efenda nt ’s pe t itio n, a nd de fendant appe aled. A

l though def endan t appea l ed th e di sm

i ssa l of h i s m otion f or le av e to fi

l e a th i rd po st co nvictio n pet itio n in all 11 cas es t o w hich he plea ded guilt y, he includ ed o nly i ndict ment
nu mbe r90 CR 11 97 9 in t he ca pt io n o f t ha t mo t io n a nd in his no t ice o f ap pe al. Ac co r din gly, t his court found that i

t had jurisdi ction onl

y ove r in dictment No. 90 CR 11979. See Peo ple v.No. 1-08- 2024

3 T his r ep o r t wa s init ially o r de r ed by t he ch ief ju dg e o f t he cir cu it co ur t cr iminal d ivisio n in a written order entered on Apri l 24, 2002, but was n ot compl eted until Jul y 2006. 12 A nd ers on , 375 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 12 1, 123 ( 2007)
. After t he circuit co urt ruled o n defendant’s po stco nvi ction pe tition and w hil

e defendant’s appeal was pendi

ng, on Jul y 2006, the Re

port of the Special

Stat e’s A tt orney invest igat ing alle gations of

police m is conduct and abus e at Area 2 was com ple ted and rele ased. 3 Defend ant sought leav

e of thi s court t o cite that repor t as additional authority on appea

l. A lthough we gr an t ed de fen da nt ’s r eq ue st t o cit e t o t ha t r ep o r t , in o ur fina l o r de r , we co nc lud ed t ha t it wo uld be “ wrong for us to co nsi

der that repo rt for t he f

irst tim e on appeal

without it f

irst be in g attached to defen dant’s postconviction petition for i ni tial scrutin y a nd eval uation at the trial

court le vel .” A nd ers on , 37 5 Il

l . A pp. 3d a t 139 . W e then

went on to af f i rm the su m mary di sm i ss al of def endan t’s pe titi on wi thout the b enef

i t of the Report of

the Sp eci al State’s Attorne y . See Pe o ple
v. A nd ers on , 375 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 12 1, 123 ( 2007) , appeal denied, 226 Il l . 2d 588 (2007 ). Instant Petition On Jun e 6, 2008, defen

dant fi le d a pro se “ Mot i on

f or L ea v e to F i l e S uc ce ss i

v e P ost Convi ction Petition for Cause,” en compass in

g all 11 of hi s guilty ple as (i ncl udin g case Nos. 90 CR 11979, 90 CR 11980, 90 CR 11982, 90 CR 11983, 90 CR 11986 t hrough 11991 and 90 CR 606 048 ), a

nd atta ch ed to tha t hi s p res en t succ es si ve pos tcon vi cti on p eti ti on. Th e i

ns tan t pe ti ti on i s de f endan t’s f ourth su cce ssi ve peti tion wi th res pect to cas e No. 90 CR 119 79 an d hi s thi rd
suc ces sive pe t itio n wit h re spe ct t o t he r emaining 10 g uilty plea c ase s. I n t his pet itio n, d efenda nt for the fi rst t im e asserted a clai

m of actual i nnocen ce and al le ged that hi s guilty

ple as were m

adeNo. 1-08- 2024

4 W e n ote that the O PS i

nv es ti ga ti on b eg an

i n 1 989 , f ol l owi ng i nte rnal i nv es ti ga ti on of pol i cem i sc ond uc t at A rea 2. “Th e f i rs t se cti on of the OPS rep ort i s k

now n as th e G ol ds ton report . It do cum

ents the al

le gations of

50 dif feren t suspects concerni

ng m is conduct by

Area 2 pers on n el f rom 19 73 to 19 86 . Th

e a l l eg ati on s i n cl uded 27 i n ci den ts o f b ea ti n gs , 13 i n ci den ts where a pl

astic b ag or t ype

writer cover was pl

aced over a suspect’s h

ead, 11 in ci dents where a firear m was u sed t o t hre at en o r st rike a su spe ct , 9 incident s o f elect ro sho ck, and 2 hanging i nc i den ts. The report concl

uded that A rea 2 p oli ce [, h eade d by com mandi ng of f i cer Jon Bu

rge,] engaged i n sy stematic abuse of

suspects duri

ng the 13-y

ear period, whi

ch i ncl uded pl ann

ed to rture. ” People v . Orange , 195 Ill . 2d 437, 445-46 (200 1). The s econd s ecti on of the OPS report is the Sand er s re po rt , w hich is an analysis o f the Andr ew Wilso n cas e. Tha t re po rt fou nd 13 as a resul t o f pol ic e coercion an

d in eff ective assistance of couns el . Specif ic ally , defen dant alle ged t hat : ( 1) his co nfessio n was t he pr od uct of p olice c oe rc ion; ( 2) co unse l was ineffect ive for faili ng to: in ve stigate h

i s al l egati ons of abuse , f i l e a m otion to quash arrest and

suppress his i ncul patory st at eme nt s, as we ll as ch alle ng e t he lineu p id en t ifica t io ns; ( 3) t he po lice en ga ge d in un du ly suggestive lin

eup pro cedures; and (4) defendant’s guil ty plea was i

nvolun tarily made because
coun sel adv i sed hi m that he woul

d rece i ve the death pen al ty i f the c ase wen t to t ri al
. As new ly discove re d evide nce s upp or t ing his claim, defe ndant at t ache d t he fo llowing documen ts: (1) t he Jul

y 2006 a ff ida vi t o f codef endan t Robert Allen; (2) defen

dant’s own un

dated aff ida vi t att estin g to the factual al

le gations i

n hi s petiti on; (3) the 1990 report of the Ch ic ago Police Departmen

t’s Off ic e of Professi

onal Standards (OPS) regarding pol ic e m is conduct at Area 2 pol i cesta ti on 4 ; ( 4) an ex ce r

pt fr o m t he 19 95 su mmar y re po r t o f Gr eg o ry Ba nk s’ an d D av idNo. 1-08- 2024

t hat “Bur ge [ himself] act ively part icipat ed in t he ‘mistr eat ment’ of Wilson, bur ned Wilso n wit h a
ra diat or , r epe at edly sho cke d him, and ‘eng age d [ him] in sever al unjust ifi ed p hysical alte rc at ions durin g whi ch Mr. Wi

ls on was han

dcuff ed and i ncapab le of provi din

g any resi stance.’ ” Peo ple v. Patte rs on , 192 Il

l . 2d 93, 1 41 (20 00).

14 Bates’ compl

ai nts agai nst Sergeant John B yrn

e; (5) a Septemb er 1998 chart of poli ce m is conduct
co mplaints fr om 1 979 t o 1 996 ; (6 ) t he Re po rt of t he Sp ecial St at e’s At t or ney, w hich defend ant at t empt ed t o c ite in his pr ior app eal in A nd ers on , 375 Ill . App. 3d at 133 , includ ing all of t he
su ppl em en tal OPS mem

oran da sent to th

e Sp ec i al State ’s A ttorn ey dur i ng thi s i nv es ti ga ti on sum ma rizi ng the al le gations of

police m is conduct by

the fol lowi ng al le ged vi ctim s: Cortez Bro wn (completed on March 30, 2 006), Marcus Wiggi ns (compl eted o n January 11, 2006 ), Jesse Clem on, Trem ai n G reen, Di yez Owen s, an

d Cl i nton W el ton (com pl eted on Jan uary 1, 2006 ), Mic ha el P et er so n ( da t ed Ma y 26 , 20 05 ) , T r av is R ich ar ds o n ( da t ed Ma y 26 , 20 05 ) , T er ry Ha rr is (dated Octo ber 27, 2005) and the def endan t (dat ed October 10, 2005); and (7) an unda ted “Request For A [P ublic] Hearin g Before the Co ok Co unty Board On the Special Prosecut ors’ Pol i ce Torture In

ve stigation an

d Rep ort” (herei

naf ter the R eque st). On Ju ly 19, 2 008 , t he circ uit co ur t denied defend ant leave t o file a su cce ssive postco nvi ction petition, holdi

ng that defen

dant had rai sed the sam

e exact clai

ms in hi s earlie r post convicti on pet itions an d that he f

ail ed to present any new m

aterial evi dence to suppor t t hese claims which wo uld wa rr ant gr ant ing him l eave t o p ro cee d wit h a su cce ssive pe t itio n. D efenda nt now appeals.No. 1-08- 2024

15 II. AN AL YSIS On ap pe al, de fen da nt co nt en ds t ha t t he cir cu it co ur t er r ed wh en it de nie d h im lea ve t o file his su cce ssi ve postconv i cti on petiti

on b eca use he properl y al l eged a cl ai m of a ctual i nn ocence. In the al tern ati ve , de f en da nt c onte nds th at h i s m oti on f or lea ve to f i l e h i s s uc ce ss i ve pos tcon vi cti on petition s atisf

ie d the prerequis ites of

the cause-and-prej udic e test. For the reasons that fol low, we di sag ree. W e b eg i n b y noti ng the we l l -es tab l i sh ed pri nc i plesreg ard

i ng succ es si ve pos tcon vi cti on proceedin gs. The Post-Co nvi

ction Heari

ng Act (Act) (725 I LCS 5/122-1 et se q. (We st 2004 )) prov i de s a mea ns by wh i ch a d ef en da nt m ay ch al l en gehi s c onv i cti on f or “ su bs tan ti al depri va ti on of f ederal or stat e constitutional

righ ts.” People v . Tenner , 175 Il l . 2d 372 , 378 (1 997). A postcon v i cti on ac ti on i s a col l ate ra l atta ck on a p rior c on

v i cti on an d s en ten ce an d “ ‘i s n ot a substi tut e for, or an addendum

to , direct appeal .’ ” Peo ple v. Simmons , 388 Ill . App. 3d 599, 605, (2009), quo ting Pe o ple v. Ko ko r ale is , 159 Ill . 2d 325, 328 (1994). Consequen tly, the Act contemplates the fili

ng of only

one post convicti on pet ition, and obtaini ng l eave of court is a cond i tion prece den t to fil i ng a suc ces si ve postconv i cti on petiti

on. Simmons , 388 Ill . App. 3d at 605, citi ng People v . Brockman , 363 I ll . App. 3d 67 9, 688- 89 (2006 ); see also 725 ILCS 5/ 12 2- 1( f) ( We st 20 04 ) ( “[ o ] nly o ne pe t it io n ma y be f iled by a p et it io ne run de rt his [ a] r t icle wi thou t l ea ve of the cou rt”) ; s eealso People v . DeB erry, 372 Ill . App. 3d 1056, 1060 (2007) (“se ct ion 1 22- 1( f) une quivo cally requ ires t hat a de fendant must obt ain leave o f co ur t befo re fil ing
a succe ssi ve peti tion ***. Se cti on 122 -1(f

) cons titutes a proce dural

hur dl e *** that the

l egi slature ha s i nten tion al l y chosen to im pose re gardi

ng s uch peti tions” (e m phasi s i n ori gi na l .))No. 1-08- 2024

16

Pu rsu ant t o s ect ion 1 22- 1( f) o f the Act , lea ve o f co ur t may be gra nt ed o nly i f defend ant

“ de m ons trate s c au se

f or hi s or he r f ai l ure to br i ng the cl ai m i n h i s or he r i ni ti al pos t[]c onv

i cti on pro ceedings an

d prejudice resul

ts from that fail

ure.” 72 5 ILCS 5/122 -1(f) (West 200 4); see also People v . Pitsonbarger , 2 05 Ill. 2d 44 4, 45 8 ( 20 02 ). To es t ablish ca us e, de fend ant mus t ide nt ify an obj ective fac

to r that im

peded his abi

li ty to raise a spec if

ic cl ai m duri ng hi s i ni tial pos tcon vi cti on proce edi

ng s. 7 25 I LC S 5/ 122 -1( f

) (W es t 200 4); se e a

l so Pitsonba

rger , 205 Ill . 2d at 458 ; DeB erry, 37 2 Ill. App. 3d at 106 0; People v . Morgan , 212 Il l . 2d 148 , 153-5 4 (200 4). To establ is h prej udic e, defen

dant mus t demonstrate that t he error not r ai sed i n hi s i ni tial post convicti on pro ceedings s o inf ected t he trial that the resulting convi ction vi olated due p rocess. 725 IL CS 5/1 22- 1(f

) (W es t 200 4); se e al so Pitsonba rger , 20 5 Ill. 2d at 458 ; DeB erry, 37 2 I ll. App. 3d at 106 0; Morgan , 212 Il l . 2d at 15 4. Ho weve r, ou r su pr eme co ur t has r eco gnized t hat defend ant need not est ablish cau se a nd prejudi ce i n hi s secti on 122-1(f) m

ot ion f or leave to fi le a success iv

e petition i

f h e can sh ow a va l i d f reestand i ng c l ai m of a ctual i nn ocence. Pe o ple v. Or t iz , 235 Ill . 2d 319, 330-31 (2009) (“whe re a de fendant set s for t h a claim of ac t ual innoc ence in a suc ces sive po st co nvictio n pet itio n, the defe ndan t is ex cused f rom showi

ng cause a

nd prej udic e”), citi

ng Pitsonba

rger , 205 Ill . 2d at 459-60, and People v . Brown , 2 25 I ll. 2d 1 88, 206 (2 007 ). “To win re lief under [t his] t heo ry, t he
ev ide nc e a dd uc ed by d efe nd an t an d e st ab lishin g h is a ct ua l inno ce nc e mu st firs t be ne wly di scovered, i.e. , it m

ust be evi dence that (1) was not avai la ble at defen

dant’s origi

nal trial and (2) that defenda

nt could not have di scovered sooner through dil ige nce.” Simmons , 388 Ill . App. 3d at 614, citin

g Morgan , 212 I ll . 2d at 154. “Mor eover, t he evi dence provided by

defendan t mustNo. 1-08- 2024

17

als o be mat er ial a nd no nc umu lat ive , an d mu st be o f su ch co nc lus ive ch ar ac t er t ha t it wo uld probabl y c han ge the resul

t o n retrial .” Simmons , 388 Ill . App. 3d at 614, citin g Morgan , 21 2 I ll. 2d at 15 4. W e re vi ew the de ni al of de f en da nt' s m oti on f or lea ve to f i l e a succ es si ve pos tcon vi cti on pet itio n de novo
. Pe opl

e v . L aP oi

n te , 365 Il l . Ap p. 3d 91 4, 923 ( 2006) , aff’d, 227 Ill . 2d 39 (2007 ). Freestanding Claim of Actual Innocence In th e p re se n t ca se , de f

en da n t f i rs t con ten dsth at h e sh oul d b e af f ord ed an opp ortu n i ty to pre sent h i s s uc ce ss i ve pos tcon vi cti on p eti ti on b ec au se

he i s a ss erti ng a f ree sta nd i ng cl ai m of actual i nn ocence b ase d upon : (1) pol i ce c oerci on an d (2) i ne f f ecti ve ass i stan ce of coun sel wh ere co unse l forc ed him t o p lead g uilty by inf or ming him

t hat if he did no t do so he wo uld r ece ive the death penal

ty. The State concedes that a defen dant whose petition presents a va li d cl ai m of actual i nn ocen ce is n ot requi red to satisf

y the c aus e-an

d-prejudice test, but con

tend s tha t def endan t here ha s f ail ed to pres en

t a va l i d cl ai m of a ctual i nn ocence. W

e agre e wi

th the State. At t he o ut se t , we no t e t ha t we ne ed no t co nsid er de fen da nt ’s ac t ua l inno ce nc e c laim pr edica t ed u po n ineffect ive assist ance of c ou nsel re sult ing fro m cou nsel’s p re ssu re on d efenda nt to plead gu

i l ty , si nc e that c l ai

m , ev en i f othe rwise va l i dl y pre sente d, is b arred

by the doc tri ne of res judicata . T her e is no que st ion t hat , g ener ally, po st co nvictio n pet itio ns ar e su bject t o t he do ct rine o f res judicata , so t hat all i ssues actual

ly deci ded on di

rect appeal or in

the origi nal postconv i cti on petiti

on are ba rred f rom b ei ng r el i tig ated i n s ubs eque nt petiti ons. Pe o ple v. Bla ir , 215 Ill . 2d 427, 443 (2005). More specif ic ally , this al so appli es to clai ms of actual i

nnocen ce,No. 1-08- 2024

5 We note t hat after t he recharacterization of defendant’s m ot ion to vacat e hi s guil

ty pleas, and the sub sequent di sm

is sal of def endan t’s origi nal postco nvi

ction petition by

the ci rcuit court as “f ri vol ous an d paten tly wi thout m eri t,” def endan t di d not ap

peal
. 6 The record reveal s that the fi rst t im e we rej ected defen

dant’s cl ai m on a ppeal with res pect to all of hi s guilty ple as. See Peop l e v . A

nd ers on , No. 1- 00-2338 (2002) (unpubl is hed order pur sua nt t o S upr eme Co ur t Rule 2 3) . I n do ing so , w e fo und t hat defend ant was bar re d by t he 18 in sofar as they

are not new or predicated upon new ev ide nce. See Or t iz , 235 Ill . 2d at 332 (holdi ng that unless def

endan t presents newl

y di scovered evi

dence i n hi s clai m of actual inno ce nce , t he p re clu sio n do ct rine s o f res judicata , co llat er al e st o pp el a nd law o f t he ca se will prevent def

endan t from “ ‘ “taki ng two bites out of the sam e appella te apple” ’ ” and av

oid “ ‘pi ecem eal postco nvi

ction l itigation’ ”), quoting People v . Tenner , 206 Ill . 2d 381, 395, 398 (2002), quo ting Pe opl

e v . Pa rte , 125 Il l . 2d 234 , 37 (19 88). Here, the record unequiv

ocall y e stablis hes that the i ssue of couns el ’s i nef fecti ven ess has been r aised and fu lly

adjud icat ed mo re t han o nce. Pr ior t o t he inst ant pet itio n, d efenda nt
unsucc es sf

ul l y rai se d th e s am e ex ac t al l eg ati on s on th re e s ep arate

occ as i on s ( i

n h i s m oti on to vacate his guilty

ple as, whi

ch was rech

aracterized as a

n origi nal postco nvi

ction petition, as well a s i n h i s s ec ond an d th i rd p ostc onv

i cti on p eti ti ons), w he re h e al l eg ed tha t he wa s dep ri

ve d of eff ective assistance of couns el when counsel “coerced” hi

m to plea d guil ty through repeated sta tem en ts th at if he proc ee de d to t r ial, he wo uld r ec eiv e t he de at h p en alt y. E ac h t ime, t he cir cu it
cou rt found defendant ’s all egat ions without merit, and in considering the dismissal of defendant’s last two petitions, 5 we

af f i rm ed th e dec i si

on of th e c i rc ui t cou rt. 6No. 1-08- 2024

do ct rine o f res judicatafro m relitiga t ing t his issue s ince t hat issue ha d alr ead y been ad dr esse d and rejected by

the ci rcuit court in i

ts dism is sal of def endan t’s origi nal postco nvi

ction petition. See Peop l e v . A

nd ers on , No
. 1- 00
- 23 38 ( 20 02 ) ( un pu blish ed o r de rpu r su an t t o Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 23). The second ti

me , defen dant’s appeal

was taken onl

y f rom case No. 90 CR 11979, even th oug h de f en da n t so ug h t to i n cl ude th e rem ai n i n g g ui l ty pl ea s on appe al, s i n ce de f en da n t f ai l ed to in cl ude the other case num

bers i n hi s notice of

appeal . See A

nd ers on , 375 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 142-43. In reject ing defendant’s clai m of i neff ect ive assi stance o f counsel, we ag ain f ound t hat de fendant’s cla im was bar re d by t he d o ct rine o f res judicata . See A nd ers on , 3 75 I ll. App. 3d a t 142 -4 3. We fur t her fo und t hat eve n if we we re t o re lax t he p ro ce du ra l bar o f res judicata , defendant ’s al l eg ati on th at c ounse l

coe rc ed h i m i n to pl eadi n g g ui l ty b y th re ate n i n g h i m wi th th e dea th pen al ty
was “direc t ly refut ed by t he r eco rd ” belo w, which es t ablished t hat dur ing t he plea nego t iatio ns t he St at e ma de cle ar an d d efe nd an t ac kn o wle dg ed t ha t he un de r st o o d t ha t “ ‘t his w as no t a p o ss ible de ath pe na l ty ’ ” ca se , an d de f en da nt s tate d that n

o one ha d e i the r th rea ten ed hi m by f orce or i ndu ced h i m by prom i ses to enter h

i s gui l ty p l ea. A

nd ers on , 375 Ill . App. 3d at 144. A l thou gh i n th at c as e w e l

ooke d on l y to ca se No. 9 0 C R 1 197 9, th

e re as ons an d s cop e of
o ur de cis io n w it h r es pe ct t o t ha t ca se wo uld ap ply e qu ally t o de fen da nt ’s r ema ining gu ilt y ple as , if
we wereto co n si

der thei r m eri ts o n appe al, pa

rti cul arl y si n ce we re sol v ed th e s am e iss ue s wi th respect to all of

the guil ty pl ea cases i n our second revi

ew of thi s clai

m. See Peop l e v . A

nd ers on , No. 1-00-2 338 (2 002) (u

npu bl i shed order

pursuan t to Suprem

e Court Ru

l e 23). 19No. 1-08- 2024

7 T he r ec o r d r ev ea ls t ha t de fen da nt init ially r ais ed a c laim o f po lice co er cio n in h is testim ony a t a pret rial

heari ng on hi s m ot ion to suppress hi

s statemen

ts in 1991 and that the trial court found that his conf

essi on was not coerced. Defendan t next rais ed this

cl ai m of police coercion 13 y

ears later in h

is third suc cessi

ve postconviction petition. That petition was dism is sed by the circuit court , and we aff irm ed the dism

issal with respect t o defendant’s guil ty plea i n case No. 90 CR 11979. See A nd ers on , 375 Ill . App. 3d at 130-31. In doing so, we found that

20 Defend ant her e has not pr ovid ed u s wit h any new d oc ument at ion o r e vidence of a ny kind t o s upp or t his co nt ent ion t hat co unse l in f act “co er ced ” him into plead ing gu ilty by thre at ening hi m wi th the death penal

ty. Al l of the documen

ts defen dant reli es on i n support of hi s actual in nocence cl

ai m pe rtain to the sy stematic poli ce m is conduct and al

le gations of

police tort ure at Area 2. No ne o f the m have any bea ring o n what t ra nspire d bet wee n defens e co unse l and t he de fe nd an t , no rdo t he y sh ed an y lig ht int o de fe nd an t ’s r ea so ns fo rpl ea di ng gu ilt y. Ac co r di ng ly, defen dant cann ot use these docum

ents to establi sh a f

reestandi ng cl ai m of actual i nnocen ce base d upon counsel ’s i

nef fecti ven ess. See People v . Coll

ie r , 3 87 I ll. App. 3d 6 30, 637 (2 008 ) ( hold ing t ha t “fr ee st an din g c laims o f [ ac t ua l] in no ce nc e c o nt emp lat e t ha t t he ne wly d isc o ve r ed ev ide nc e is
n ot al so b ei n g u se d to s

uppl em en t th e a ss er

ti on of an oth er con sti tuti on al v i ol ati on wi th re sp ec t to the trial”), citi

ng Peop l e v . W ashi

ng ton , 171 Ill . 2d 475, 479 (1996). Theref ore, t here are n

o new do cu ment s t hat de fend ant ca n us e t o ave rt t he a pp licat io n o f t he d o ct rine o f res judicata , which bars h im from reli tigatin g the sam e i ssue once agai

n. See Or t iz , 235 Ill . 2d at 330. We theref ore next address def

endan t’s cl ai m of actual i nnocen ce base d upon police co er cion. Altho ugh d efenda nt ha s rai sed the issue of

pol i ce c oerci

on b ef ore 7 , he now attachesNo. 1-08- 2024

def endan t had f orfe i ted hi s ri ght to rai se a

clai m of p oli ce c oerci on b eca use def endan t was a ware o f t he co er cio n a t t he t ime t ha t it alle ge dly t o o k p lac e in 19 90 , an d a t t he t ime he en t er ed his gu ilt y ple as in 1 99 1, bu t “c ho se t o ab an do n t he se alle ga t io ns, ” w ait ing 13 yea r s t o r ais e t he m in his thi rd succe ssi

ve postconv i cti on petiti

on. A nd ers on , 3 75 I ll. App. 3d a t 133 . We furt her fou nd t ha t de fen da nt ’s cla im o f co er cio n w as wa ive d b ec au se “avo lun t ar y gu ilt y ple a w aiv es all
non j uri sdi cti onal errors or i

rregul ari tie s, i nc l udi ng c onsti tution al ones ,” an d be caus e the

record reveal ed that “the ci

rcuit court found on at least three occasions that defen dant’s gui lty ple a was en tered v ol un tar i l y (f i rs t, a t th e ti me of de f en da n t’s pl ea ; se con d, i n den y i n g def en da n t’s moti on to vacate his pl ea, and thi

rd, when den

yi ng def endan t’s second postconvi ction petition).” A nd ers on , 375 Ill . App. 3d at 133.

21 se ve r al n ew do cu men t s, wh ich he co nt en ds co nst it ut e n ew ly dis co ve r ed ev ide nc e ma t er ial t o his claim, which w er e no t available t o him at t he t ime he nego t iate d and ent er ed his g uilty pleas , a nd whi ch cons eque ntl y sati sf y the re qui si

tes of actual i nn ocence. We no t e t ha t sinc e d efe nd an t ’s ac t ua l inno ce nc e c laim is pr ed ica t ed o n t he fac t t ha t his
con f es si ons were th e p roduct of

coercion b

y D etectives McDermott and Masl anka, an d that but fo rt ha t co er cio n he ne ve rwo ul d h av e imp lica t ed hims elf in t he ca se s t o wh ich he pl ea de d g ui lt y, we ar e l i m i ted i n s cope to addr

ess i ng th ose gu i l ty p l eas wh erei n de f endan t di d actua

l l y conf ess . A s n oted ab ove , th e re cord

rev eal s th at d ef en da nt m ad e i nc ri m i na ti ng sta tem en ts on l y i n 6 out of the 11 cases t o which h

e pleaded guil

ty (nam ely , case No s. 90 CR 11979 , 90 CR 11987 , 90 CR 11989, 90 CR 11990, 90 CR 11991 and 90 CR 660648), and that these confe ssions were used asNo. 1-08- 2024

8 W e n ote that d ef

en da nt a ttac he d s evera

l more d ocu men ts to h i s s uc ce ss i ve pos tcon vi cti on peti tion , i nc l udi ng, as al ready noted a bove: (1) th

e Ju l y 2006 a f f i dav i t of code f endan t Rober t Al le n; (2) def endan t’s own undated af

fi davi t att estin g to the factual al

le gations i

n hi s petiti on; (3) t he 19 90 r epo rt of t he Chica go Po lice Dep ar t ment’ s Office o f Pro fessio nal St anda rd s re gar ding po lice miscond uct at Area 2 po lice st at ion; ( 4) an exc er pt fro m the 1 995 summary r epo rt of t he Gregory Ban

ks’ an d Davi d Bates’ compl

ai nts agai nst Sergeant John B yrn

e; an d (5) a September 199 8 cha rt of p olice misco nduc t co mplaints fr om 1 979 t o 1 996 . H ow ever , o n app eal de fendant 22 the factual basis for hi s pleas onl y i n those 6 cases. Acco rdingl y, i t is only with respect t o t hese six c as es t ha t we mus t no w d et er mine w he t he rde fen da nt sho uld be pe rmit t ed t o pr o ce ed wit h his cont ention o f actual innocence based upo n police coer cion. In any event, even if defendant’s
ac t ua l inno ce nc e c laim ba se d u po n p o lice co er cio n w er e t o en co mpa ss all 1 1 c as es , t he sa me rati onal e wh i ch shal l be arti cul ated b elow would app l

y . On ap pe al, de fen da nt r elie s o n t wo do cu men t s t ha t he co nt en ds co nst it ut e n ew ly dis covered evi

dence supportin

g hi s clai m of actual i nnocen ce i n those cases: (1) the Jul

y 2006 Rep or t of t he Sp ecial St at e’s At t or ney’s invest igat ion int o a llegat ions o f to rt ur e, including t he
su ppl em en tal OPS mem

oran da sent to th

e Sp ec i al State ’s A ttorn ey dur i ng thi s i nv es ti ga ti on summ arizi ng the all egations of police m

isconduct with respect t o t he f ollowi ng alleged vi

ctims : Cortez B rown, Ma

rcu s W i ggi ns , Je ss e C l em

on, Trem ai n G ree n, Di yez Ow en s, a nd Cl i nton Wel to n, Michael

Peterson, Tr avi s Richardson, Terry H arris, an d the defe ndan t; and (2) an undated “Reque st For A [Public ] Hearin g Bef ore t he Cook County Board On the Speci al Prosec utors’ Pol i ce Torture In

ve stigation an

d Rep ort.” 8No. 1-08- 2024

does not, nor could he, argue that t hese docum ents constitute newl

y di scovered evi

dence warrantin g an opport uni

ty f or him to fi le hi s success iv

e postco nvi

ction petition, sin

ce all of them
were ei ther a va i l ab l e or woul

d ha ve be en di scoverab l e throug

h du e di l i gen ce l ong b ef ore def endan t rai sed his cl ai m of a ctual i nn ocence b ase d upon

pol i ce c oerci

on i n h i s cu rren t peti tion
. As such, w e need n

ot addres s the

relev ance of

thes e docum

en ts. 23 As alre ady no t ed a bove , in o rd er t o c ons t itu t e new ly discove re d evide nce, eac h do cument
mus t no t ha ve be en av aila ble at de fen da nt ’s o r igin al t r ial a nd de fen da nt mus t no t ha ve be en ab le to dis cove

r i t sooner th

rough dil i gen ce. Simmons , 388 Ill . App. 3d at 614, citin g Morgan , 212 Il

l
. 2d a t 154 . I n add itio n, t he evide nce mus t also be mat er ial, no ncumulat ive, a nd o f such c onc lusive character that i

t woul d prob ab l

y change th e res

ul t on retrial
. Morgan , 212 Il l . 2d at 15 4. “Mo re ove r, t he evide nce p ro vided by de fendant must also be mat er ial and no ncumulat ive, a nd
mus t be of such

concl usi ve ch aracter t hat it would probab ly chan ge the resul

t o n retrial .” Simmons , 388 Ill . App. 3d at 614, citin g Morgan , 212 Ill . 2d at 154. It is apparen

t t hat nei ther document was av

ai la ble at the tim

e of def endan t’s origi nal trial
and tha t def endan t coul d not hav e di scovered e i ther d ocum en t earl i er throug h du e di l i gen ce. Simmons , 388 Ill . App. 3d at 614, citin g Morgan , 2 12 I ll. 2d a t 154 . As a lread y not ed a bove , t he Report o f the Speci

al Stat e’s A tt orney onl

y b ecam e avai la ble i n Jul y 2006, 15 y

ears af ter de fen da nt ’s gu ilt y ple as we r e e nt er ed o n Au gu st 9, 19 91 , an d w hile d efe nd an t ’s ap pe al o f his t hird p os t co nvictio n pet itio n was pend ing befo re t his co ur t . U po n t he r epo rt ’s r elease , d efenda nt im me dia tely requested that he be perm itted to use the report as additional authority i

n hi s then current appeal

of the di sm

is sal of his thi rd successi

ve postconviction petition. Al though weNo. 1-08- 2024

24

perm i tted de f en da n t to f i l e th at rep ort a s a

ddi ti on al au th ori ty , w e ul ti mate l y con cl uded th at a better practi

ce woul d be to have the

ci rcui t court cons i der the newl

y di scovered d

ocum en t bef ore we reviewed i

t o n appeal . See A

nd ers on , 375 Ill . App. 3d at 138-39. Defendan t has, therefore,
now at t ache d a c op y of t hat re po rt t o his inst ant mot ion fo r leave t o file his suc ces sive postconv i cti on petiti

on. It simi larly app ear s fro m the r eco rd t hat t he se co nd do cument defend ant re lies upo n, nam el y the Request, was not availa

ble at the tim

e of def endan t’s entry of

hi s guilty ple as and that def endan t woul d not hav e b een

ab l e to di scover i

t sooner th

rough the u se of

due d i l i gen ce. Altho ugh t he Re que st is unda t ed, fro m its co nt ent it is ap par ent t hat it w as c omp lete d aft er t he
re l ea se of th e R ep ort of th e S pe ci al Sta te’ s A ttorn ey , s i n ce th e s ub sta n ce of th e R eq ue st i s to qu esti on th e i m pa rtial i ty an d th e c on cl us i on s reach

ed b y th e S pe ci al Sta te’ s A ttorn ey i n i ts i nv esti gation of the cha rges of p oli ce m i scon duct i n A reas 2 an d 3. A cc ordi n gl y , w e n ex t tur n to th e q ue sti on of th e docu men ts’ mate rial i ty an d th e deg re e to wh i ch the y are of “ such con cl us i ve ch ara cter th at [th

ey ] wou l d pr oba bl y ch an gethe res ul t on retrial .” Simmons , 388 Ill . App. 3d at 614, citin g Morgan , 212 Il

l . 2d at 15 4. We b egi n wi th the Report o f the Speci al Stat e’s A tt orney. Tha

t repo rt exami

ned sev eral al l eged cas es of m i scon duct i nv olv i ng th e sa me pol i ce of f i cers that de f endan t al l eged were in volv ed i n coerci ng hi s conf essi ons. Specif

ic ally , the report exam

in ed the case of A

lf onzo Pine x and concl uded that there exi sted suff ic ie nt evi dence to both in

dict and fi nd Detectiv

es Masl anka
an d M cD erm

ott gui l ty be yond a re as ona bl e doubt f or ag gra va ted ba ttery , pe rj ury , an d ob stru cti on of j ustice i

n the i nterrogat ion of

Pin ex at Area 2 on Jun

e 28, 1985. The report noted that o n thatNo. 1-08- 2024

9 De f en da nt, i n a f ootnote , con

ten dstha t al thou gh the rep ort f oun d B rown i nc red i bl e, on Ma y 22, 200 9, i

n c as e N o. 90CR

239 97, Judge

Cl ay ton J . Cran

e of the ci rcu i t cou rt of Cook Co unt y gra nt ed B ro wn a ne w t rial follow ing an evide nt iary hear ing, no t ing t hat evidenc e o f the mi sconduct of “som

e, if not all , of the detectives

in this case *** staggeri

ng *** [and] dam

ni ng.” Def endan t urgesus to take judicial

noti ce of the c omm

en ts m ade b y Judg e Cra

ne . Obv iousl y, h owever, we cann

ot take such j udic ia

l n ot ic e si nce def endan t has not provided
us w ith a t ra nscr ipt co nt aining Jud ge C ra ne’s c omment s, no r fo r t hat matt er has he given us any o t he rdir ec t io n t o en ab le t his c o ur t t o lo ca t e t ho se co mment s s o as t o de t er mine if t he y we r e in f ac t mad e, a

nd i f so i n w ha t con tex t, wh ether i n a col l oquy or i n a n or de r, w he the r b ef ore tr i al or duri ng tri al , wh ethe

r on a m otion , or in

contex t of postc onv

i cti on proce edi

ngs . Mor eov er , e v en i f j udi ci al n oti ce wereoth er

wise appr opri ate l

y tak en , w h atev er com men ts Judge Crane m

ay have m ade about Brown would not alter the contents of the report itself , which is t he do cu men t t ha t de fen da nt himse lf ha s r elie d o n a s t he ne wly d isc o ve r ed ev ide nc e t ha t wo uld supp ort hi s cl

ai m of a ctual i nn ocence. M oreover , as w e di scu ss l ater i n the tex t, eve n i f the re port itse lf cont ained t hat informat ion, it w ou ld no t chang e t he r esu lt since , a mong ot her t hings, t he 25 da t e t he t wo de t ec t ive s, wo rkin g t o ge t he r , de nie d P ine x’s r eq ue st s fo rco un se l an d b ea t him u nt il he soi l ed hi m se l f i n or de r to ob tai

n a con f es si on. Th e re

port detai l ed

si m i l ar a l l eg ati ons of
coerci on i n th e c as e of Cortez B rown

ag ai ns t De tec ti ve Ma sl an ka . Br own al l eg ed tha t on Sep t ember 2 1 and 22, 199 0, he wa s t hre at ened wit h t he de at h pena lty and be at en wit h a flashlight by two o ff ic ers, one bei

ng Detectiv

e Masl anka. The report, however, concluded that Brown was
no t a c r ed ible v ict im. 9 The report also noted t he al le gations of

Marcus W

iggi ns, who al

le ged thatNo. 1-08- 2024

evidence pro ff

ered by the St ate at d efendant’s plea hearing amply suppo rt ed defendant ’s convicti on without dependin g upon defendant’s confessi ons. 26 Det ect ive Maslank a and ot her officer s co er ced his co nfessio n in Sep t ember 1 991 , w hen Wiggins
wasa j uve

ni l e, by be ati ng, th reaten i ng, a nd s hock i ng h i m . Wi ggi ns f i l ed a c i vi l sui t agai nst, inter alia , Detectiv

e Mas l anka

whi ch res ul ted in a $95,000 s ettlem

ent. However, bas ed upon a n OPS invest igat ion memo t o t he Sp ecial St at e’s At t or ney, w hich did no t sus t ain the sho ck a nd bea t ing al l eg ati on s, b ut on

l y f oun d th at D ete cti v e M as l an

ka i m pr ope rl y qu esti on ed

W i gg i n s wi th out a parent present, the Report o f the Speci al Stat e’s A tt orney conc lude d that Detect iv e Masl anka
co uld no t be pr os ecu t ed d ue t o a lack o f co rr obo ra t ion and t he fact t hat t he t est imony of t he
o ffice r s c o nt r ad ict ed Wig gin s’ cla ims. Ac co r din gly, at be st , t he r ep o r t ide nt ifies o ne sing le i nstanc e of

m i scon duct b y Detec tiv es M asl an ka an d Mc Derm

ott with regar d to Alf onzo Pi nex. Al though admi

tt edl y a nd relevan

tly the Report o f the Speci

al Stat e’s A tt orney i mpl ic ates Detectives Maslanka an

d McDerm

ot t in coerci

ng a conf essi on from Pin ex, i t specif ic ally separates i tself f rom a ny of def endan t’s cha rges . A th

ree-p age m

em orand um attached to the re

port sp ec i f i cal l y di scus se s th

e Sp ec i al State ’s A ttorn ey s i nv es ti ga ti on of de f en da nt’ s a l l eg ati ons of
coe rcion and re commends that defendant’s matt er be closed at t he office o f the Special Sta te’s Atto rney because : “Tony An derson i s an acti

ve l iti gator whose al

le gations can

not be supported due to a l ack of phy

si cal and m edi cal corro boration, la

ck of consistent and documen ted prior si mi la r all egations to third parties , a lack of consi stency

in num erous previous pleadi ng s m ad e b y A nd ers on s i nc e the eve

nts i n q ue sti on, an d f i na l l y , b y a l ac k ofNo. 1-08- 2024

27 cooperat ion i

n the i nve stigati on herei

n on the adv

ic e of counsel

that such m

ay com prom i se h i s pendi ng a ppea l s.” It is thus apparen

t from i ts face that wi

th respect to defen

dant, the Report of the Special Stat e’s A tt orney does n

ot provide an

y n ew evi dence to corro borate defenda nt’s al le gations that pol i ce coe rc i on wa s dep l oy

ed ag ai n st h i m , but i n f ac t, a f f i rm ati v el y i m pe ach es h i s cre di b i l i ty wi th
re sp ect to those

al l eg ati on s. A cc ordi

n gl y , th i s rep ort w oul

d h av e n o re as on ab l e l

i ke l i h ood to chan ge the resul

t o f def endan t’s proceedin

gs on retrial , and can

not constitute “newl

y di scovered
evi den ce” of h i s actual i nn ocence. Simmons , 388 Ill . App. 3d at 614, citin g Morgan , 212 Ill . 2d at 154. We nex

t addr ess the second do cument upon which defendan t relies, nam

ely , t he “Request For A [Publ

ic ] Hearin g Bef ore t he Cook County Board On the Speci al Prosecuto rs’ Poli

ce Tort ure Investigation an

d Report. ” The Request, signed b y 28 n onprofi t o rgani zations (i ncl udin g, inter al ia , the Midwe st Regional

Off ic e of Am nesty International, the Nort hwetsern La w School’s B luh

m L egal Clin ic , the Cali

forni a Innocen ce Project, the Center on Wrongf ul Con vi cti ons , th e C en

ter f or Con sti tutiona l Ri gh ts, C i tizens A l ert, the

Il l i noi s Ass oci ati on of Criminal Defense Law yers, t he Ma cArt hur Jus t ice Ce nt er , a nd t he Chica go Chap t er of t he Nat ional La wyers Guild) , q ues t ions t he impar t iality of t he Sp ecial St at e’s At t or ney’s re po rt , a nd sug ges t s t hat t he findings in t he Pinex c ase ar e “just t he t ip o f the iceber g” in r evea ling the preval ent use of tort ure by

off ic ers at Area 2 and l

ater, after their transf

ers to Area 3, at t hat pol i ce station

as w el l
. The Request m

akes one speci

fi c referen ce to defendan

t. The Request notes t hat the i ni tialNo. 1-08- 2024

28

80 a llegat ions o f to rt ur e all oc cur re d in Are a 2 in t he pe rio d bet wee n 197 2 and 198 7. The Request further n

ot es that in

the period between

1988 and 1991, when

defen dant’s al le ged coerci on took pl ace , man

y of the of f i cers accuse d i n the i ni tia l torture all egati

ons a t Area 2 were t ra nsferr ed t o Ar ea 3 , w her eup on s ome 2 6 new cas es o f to rt ur e we re re po rt ed in Ar ea 3 . T he Req ues t t hen go es o n t o no t e t hat aft er t he t ra nsfer o f tho se o ffi cer s t o Ar ea 3 , be t wee n 198 8 and 1991, t here was only

one doc umen

ted allegation of poli

ce to rtu re at Area 2 and that was t he case rep orted by de f en da nt. Th e R

eq ue st, h owe ve r, n ei the r de scri be s def en da nt’ s a l l eg ati ons nor pu rp orts t o na me the officer s t hat wer e allege dly involved in t he co er cive t act ics o r t he means a nd
methods of torture that they

al l eged l y use d aga i nst def endan t. Defend ant never t heless c ont ends t hat t he Re que st pr ese nt s new , mat er ial and
n on cu m ul ati v e ev i den ce

cor rob ora ti n g h i s a l l eg ati on of pol i ce coe rc i on b y Detecti v es Mc Derm ott
and Ma slan

ka suf f i cien t to permi t hi m to proceed wi

th h i s su cce ssi ve postconv i cti on petiti

on. Defe ndan t specif ic ally points out that t he Reques t not es that in

the in vestigation of the 107 allegat ions o f abuse , D et ect ive McD er mot t has be en ac cus ed o f co er cion in 5 c ase s and Det ect ive Masl anka i n 10. The Reques

t later notes that unnam

ed off ic ers at Area 2 hav

e previ ously been
acc use d o f thr eat ening su spe ct s wit h guns 15 t imes and o f having beat en su spe ct s wit h bill y clubs on 6 occ asions. Defen

dant co ntends that t hese two u nconnected stat emen ts in the Request i den ti f y th e s am e ty pe of coe rc i on tacti c th at h e a l l eg ed Detecti v es Ma sl an ka an d M cD er mott
use d o n him so as t o c or ro bor at e his co nt ent ion t hat t hey act ually coe rc ed his st at ement , a nd perm i t hi m to proceed wi

th h i s cl ai m of a ctual i nn ocence. W

e di sag ree. The Requ est, however , re fers to generalized all egat ions. Co ntra ry to defendant’sNo. 1-08- 2024

29

ass erti on, the

Requ est con tai ns no new i nf orma tion upon w hi ch thes e al l egati ons a re pre di cated. The Req ues t do es no t des cr ibe Det ect ives Mas lanka a nd Mc Der mot t as u sing t he mod e and
ma nne r of tor ture o f wh

ic h def endan t compla in s. Nor is there an

ythi ng i n the Reques

t t hat li nks t hese det ect ives t o d efenda nt . Alt hou gh t he Re que st gene ra lly not es t hat officer s at Area 2 have be en ac cu se d of

threa ten i ng su sp ec ts wi

th g un s a nd ha vi ng be aten th em wi th c l ub s, i t doe s n ot purport to nam

e Detective M aslanka or McDerm ot t as an off

ic er accused of s

uch conduct, whi

ch is the conduct with wh

ic h def endan t alleges he was coerced. We ha ve previ ously hel d that “[g ]eneral ized c l ai m s of m i scon duct, wi thout an y l i nk to de f endan t’s c ase , i.e., some ev

ide nce corro borating def

endan t’s alle gations, or some si mi la rity between the ty

pe of m is conduct all

eged b y de f en da n t an d th at pre se n ted b y th e ev i den ce

of oth er ca se s of ab us e, are i n suf f i ci en t to support a clai

m of coercion.” A

nd ers on , 37 5 Il

l . A pp. 3d a t 137 -38 ; s eealso People v . Reye s , 369 Ill. App . 3 d 1, 18- 19 ( st at ing t hat evidenc e o f prio r a llegat ions o f brut ality was re levant and
ma terial where i t “in volv ed the sam

e off ic er or o ff ic ers as i n the def endan t’s case, where they inv olved sim il ar metho ds of abuse, and where t hey occurr ed at or near t he time of the defendant’s alle gations”), ci

ting Peop l e v . Pa

tters on , 19 2 Ill. 2d 93, 115 (20 06) ; People v . Orange , 168 Ill . 2d 138, 150-51 (1995) (“generaliz ed alle gations of coercive activ

ity in Area 2, wi

thout ot her evidence, wo uld not est ablish that * ** d efendant was co erc ed into co nfessing”); Peo ple v. Murray , 254 Ill . App. 3d 538, 553 (1993) (holdi ng that defen

dant’s al le gations of

abuse of ot her
su sp ec ts w ere

prop erl y excl ude d b ec au se

the y were “ ge ne ral i n n atu re” ); se e al so e.g., Peo ple v. Ma xw ell , 173 Ill . 2d 102, 120-21 (1996) ( holdi ng that without some ev

ide nce that def

endan t was injured , e vidence of t he t re at ment o f ot her sus pec t s, t hro ugh r epo rt s o f physical abuse andNo. 1-08- 2024

30

coerci on of con f es si ons at A rea 2, c oul d n ot, b y i tse l f , b e the b as i s f

or a p ostc onv

i cti on evi den tia ry he ari ng)
. E ve n if w e w er e t o find t he info rmat io n in t he Re qu es t o t he rwis e r ele va nt , we wo uld
never t heless find t hat in li ght of t he amply sup po rt ive evidenc e o f defend ant ’s gu ilt pr offer ed by t he St at e at defend ant ’s gu ilty plea hea ring, t his informat ion wo uld have a ver y li mited effect on a trie r of f act an d woul d not hav e the

l i kel i hood to ex onera

te def endan t. Coll ie r , 387 Ill . App. 3d at 63 6 ( “‘a ctual i n n oce n ce ’ i s n ot wi th i n th e r ub ric of wh eth er a def en da n t h as b een pr ov ed gui l ty bey ond a reasonabl

e doubt. [Citation.] Rather, the hallm ark of ‘actual

in nocence’ me ans ‘ to tal vi ndication,’ or ‘exoneration’ ”), quot in g People v . Savory , 309 Il l . Ap p. 3d 40 8, 414- 15 (19 99). In that respect, we note t hat in each of the si x cases to whi ch def endan t alleges he pl

eaded guil ty onl y a fter fa ls el y i ncri mi natin g hi ms el f as a resul t o f pol ic e coercion, the State’s proffe r at the g uil ty p l ea h eari ng e stab l i shed th at l east one ey ewi tnes s iden tif i ed de f endan t as the off ender. Sp ecifically, as t he fact ual bas is for defend ant ’s gu ilty plea in cas e No . 9 0 CR 119 79 t he Sta te prof f ered th at th e ev i den ce

wou l d sh ow th

at on Ma rc h 30 , 19 90 , de f

en da n t f i re d tw o sh

ots fro m a .2 5- caliber ha ndgu n, k ill ing t he vict im, and t hat t he sa me .2 5- caliber ha ndgu n use d in t he in ci dent was f

ound in defen dant’s possess ion upon h

is arrest. The Stat e al so proffered that ey ewi tn es se s to th e i

n ci den t wou l d i den ti f y de f en da n t i n open cou rt a n d te sti f y ab out th e i n ci den t. The sam e ey ewi tnesses woul

d testify that t hey had al ready pi cked def endan t o ut o f a l

in eup. Si m i l arl y , w i th re sp ec t to case

No. 90 CR

11 98 7, as th

e f ac tual b as i s f or d ef en da n t’s gui l ty ple a the State pro ff

ered that on April

8, 1990, t ogether with a codef endan t, defendan

t entered a sto re , pu l l ed out a h an dg un an d dem an de d m on ey f rom two c ash i er s, af

ter wh i ch h e l ed th em toNo. 1-08- 2024

31

t he bac k r oo m and o rd er ed t hem to re main ther e unt il he left t he st or e wit h his acco mplice. O ne of th ose ca sh i ers i den tif i ed de f endan t in a l i ne up. The sam e i s true of defen

dant’s pl ea i n case No. 90 CR 11989. There, t he State pro ff ered that if the case proceeded to t rial the evi dence would show on March 8, 1990, def endan t entered a store di spl ay i ng a .25-ca l i ber ha ndg un, a nn ounc ed a rob

bery , cocke d hi

s we apon at a store
em ploye e an d dem anded m oney. Def

endan t too k ab out $149 f

rom th e ca sh register an

d f l ed. Th e S t at e p ro ffer ed t hat se ver al w it nes se s w ho we re pr es ent du ring t he r o bbe ry w o uld ide nt ify de f en da nt i n op en cou rt an d te sti f y tha t the y ha d al rea dy picked de f en da nt ou t of a l i ne up s oon af ter the rob

bery . In case No. 90 CR 11990, the State sim il arly proffe red that o n A

pril 13, 1990, t ogether wit h an ac co mplice defend ant ent er ed a liquo r st or e, displayed a . 25- caliber ha ndgu n and
ann ounced a robbery . Defen dant forced the vi

ctim in to the bathroom and b egan to tear hear clo t he s o ff, wh en a c us t o mer en t er ed t he st o r e, an d d efe nd an t wa s fo r ce d t o flee wit h his
acc omp lice, t aking w ith him the victim’s mo ney and jew elry. T he St at e pr offer ed t hat defend ant
wasi den tif i ed i n a l i ne up by al l of the wi tnes ses pres en t duri ng th e i nc i den t. In case No. 90 CR 11991, wherei n def endan t pleaded gui

lty to two co unts of arm

ed rob b er y , the S tate

pr of f ered th at on A pri l 4, 1 99 0, d

ef en da n t an d a n ac com pl i ce en tered a b ea uty salo n wher eup on d efenda nt displayed a . 25- caliber ha ndgu n and a nnou nced a r obbe ry. D efenda nt f orced a l l the p atronsto li

e down on the f l oor and th

en procee ded to take m

oney and j ewel

ry fro m each o f the m. De fendant t hen plac ed a gun t o t he o wner ’s hea d and or der ed he r t o o pen t he
sa fe fr o m wh ich he t o o k a n u nd isc lo se d s um. T he St at e p r o ffer ed t ha t se ve n w it ne ss es po sit ive lyNo. 1-08- 2024

32

ident ifi ed d efenda nt as t he pe rp et ra t or and fu rt her t hat t he sa me .2 5- caliber ha ndgu n use d in t he robb ery wasrecovered on

def endan t’s pe rson upon h i s arre st. Fi nal ly , in case No. 90 CR 660648, as a f actual b asi s f

or t hi s pl ea, the Stat e proff ered that on Ap ril 17, 199 0, t og et her wit h an ac co mplice, d efenda nt ent er ed a Clark gas st at ion br andishing a .25-cali ber han dgun at the two empl oyees. Def endan t t hen le d the em

ploy ees to t he b ack off

ic e, wher e he ha ndcu ffed t hem to a pipe while his acco mplice to ok money fro m the c ash r egist er and safe. The St at e pr offer ed t hat bot h employee s wo uld ident ify defend ant in op en co ur t as t he off ender j ust as

they had done i n a l i ne up sh ortly af ter the c ri me. In l igh t o f the State’s proff

er of ey ewi tness testim

ony i dentif yi ng def endan t as the offe

nder in each of the aforementio ned cases, ther e is no reaso nable pro babili ty that , if defen

dant’s inculpat or y confes sions in tho se c ase s had been e xclude d, he wo uld no t have p leade d gu ilty to t he ch ar ge s, an d i ns t ea d w o ul d h av e p r o ce ed ed t o t r ial a nd be en fo un d n o t gu ilt y. Ac co r di ng ly, defen dant has f ai le d to establ

is h a f reestandi ng cl ai m of actual i nnocen ce. See Coll

ie r , 38 7 I ll. App. 3d at 636. Cause and Pr ejudice Test In th e a l ter n ati v e, de f en da n t con ten dsth at h e sh oul d h av e b een perm i tted to proce ed

wi th hi s success iv

e postco nvi

ction petition because

he m et the requirem

ents of cause -and-prej udic e as articulated in

section 122-1(f

) of the Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (We st 2004)). We disa gree. Defe ndan t may well b e abl

e to est abl

is h cause i n so f ar as he was

obje ctive ly

im peded fro m raising t his claim earlier by po inting t o t he fact t hat he did no t have t he bene fit o f eithe r t he Report o f the Speci

al Stat e’s A tt orney or the Request i

n hi s earlie r postco nvi

ction proceedi

ngs, asNo. 1-08- 2024

33

they both b eca

me av ail ab l e af ter the d i sm i ssa l of h i s thi rd succe ssi

ve postconv i cti on petiti

on. However, for the reaso ns al ready di scussed above with respect t o defendant’s att empt to establi sh a claim of ac t ual innoc ence , he canno t est ablish pre judice. In light of t he amply sup po rt ive
ev ide nc e p r o ffer ed by t he St at e a t de fen da nt ’s gu ilt y ple a h ea r ing , t he r e is no r ea so na ble pr oba bili t y that had t hos e ad dit ional do cument s evide ncing br ut ality at Area 2 co me to light preventi ng the i ntroduct ion of

defen dant’s conf

essi on, defen dant would have proceeded to t rial
and woul d ha ve be en acqu i tted of the ch

arged off en ses . III. CONCLUSION Fo r a l l of th e af oremen ti on ed re as on s, we

af f i rm th e j udgm

en t of th e c i rc ui t cou rt. Af f i rmed. CA HILL , P.J., an

d ROB ERT E. GO RDON , J., con cur.No. 1-08- 2024

34 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ REPORTER O F DECISIO NS - ILLINOI S APP ELLATE COURT

(Front S heet to be Attached to Each Case)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Please use the following fo rm THE PEOPL E OF TH E STATE OF IL LINO IS, Plai ntif f-A ppelle e,
v. TONY ANDERSON,

De f en da n t-A pp el l an t.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ No
. 1-08-2024 Docke t No. Appellate Court o f Illino is COURT First D istrict, SIXTH Divi sion Op inio n Filed JUN E 11, 2010 (G ive m ont

h, da y and y ea r)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ JU STICE JOS EPH

GOR DON DELI VER ED TH E OPI NION OF TH E COU RT: JU STICES PR ESI DI NG JU STI CE C AH

ILL a nd J U STI CE R

OB ER T E. GO RD ON , c onc

ur.
L ow er C ou rt and Trial J udg e( s) in f

orm indi ca te d in margi

n: AP PEA L f rom the Circuit Court of Co ok Ap pe a l fr om t h e C i r cu i t Co ur t of C ook Co un t y; County; the Hon___ Judge Presiding. TheH on. Jam es B . Li nn, Ju dge pr es id in g.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Indicate if attorney repres ents APPELLA NTS or APPELL

EES and includ e attorne y' s of co unsel. Indicate the word FOR APPEL LA NTS NONE if no t represented. Joh n Doe , of C hi cago For A PPELL EES, : FOR A PPELL ANT: _Michael Pelletier, Patricia Unsinn, and Brian McNeil, Office o f the State Appellate Defender, 203 N. LaSalle Street, 24 th Floor, Chic ago I L, 60601 Smit h and S mith of Chi cago , APPEL LEE:Lisa Madigan, Atto rney General of I

llinois, Michael A. Sco dro, Solicito r General and Michael M. Glick and Katherine D. Saunders, Assistant Attorneys General, , 100 W. Rando lph Street, 12 th Floor, Chic ago I L 60601

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Add attorney

s for thirdparty appel lants a

nd/o r appellees.No. 1-08- 2024

35