2021 IL App (1st) 171483-U

No. 1-17-1483 

Second Division

March 30, 2021

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in 

the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

____________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

____________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

ILLINOIS, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 

 v. 

EDDIE FENTON, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

) Appeal from the

) Circuit Court of

) Cook County.

) 

) 

) No. 10 CR 8037

) 

) 

) Honorable 

) Kenneth J. Wadas

) Judge, presiding.

____________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE COBBS delivered the judgment of the court.

Justice Lavin concurred in the judgment. Presiding Justice Fitzgerald Smith 

dissented. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The trial court’s summary dismissal of defendant’s postconviction petition is 

affirmed where defendant’s claims of actual innocence, ineffective assistance of 

trial counsel, and unconstitutional sentence under the eighth amendment and the 

proportionate penalties clause are meritless. 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 2 - 

¶ 2 Following a 2010 jury trial, defendant Eddie Fenton was convicted of first-degree murder

(720 ILCS 5/9–1(a)(1), 9–1(a)(2) (West 2006)) in connection with a fatal shooting that occurred 

on April 1, 2006, when defendant was 20 years old. He was sentenced to a total of 110 years’ 

imprisonment. In 2017, defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition pursuant to the PostConviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2016)), which is the subject of this 

appeal. Therein, defendant raised several claims of error. The trial court summarily dismissed his 

petition. On appeal, defendant solely argues the following: (1) he presented the gist of a claim of 

actual innocence based on Donnie Moore’s recantation affidavit; (2) he received ineffective 

assistance of counsel based on his trial counsel’s failure to interview alibi witnesses; and (3) his 

110-year sentence violated the eighth amendment of the United States Constitution and the 

proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 The charges against defendant arose from the fatal shooting of Willie Williams during a 

large brawl in front of the Ford City Mall movie theater in the early hours of April 1, 2006. At the 

time of the offense, defendant was 20 years old. The following evidence was presented at his trial.

¶ 5 A. Jury Trial

¶ 6 Chicago police detective Patrick Thelen testified that around 2 a.m. on April 1, 2006, he

went to the Ford City Mall parking lot after receiving a dispatch regarding a shooting near the 

movie theater. At the scene, he learned that Williams had been taken to the hospital. No shell 

casings were found at the scene, which Detective Thelen testified was indicative of a revolver. 

¶ 7 Yolanda Metayer testified that she was close friends with Williams. On the night of March 

31, 2006, they and several other friends went to the Ford City Mall to see the movie ATL. As she 

and Williams were walking in the parking lot after the movie, they observed a group of people 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 3 - 

fighting. She and Williams ran towards the fight. Metayer testified that neither she nor Williams 

was armed, but that another man involved in the fight had a gun in his hand. As Metayer turned 

around to run away, she heard a gunshot and saw Williams fall to the ground. She discovered that 

Williams had been shot in the head. Eventually, an ambulance took Williams to the hospital.

¶ 8 Metayer identified defendant in court as the man who shot Williams, though she did not 

know defendant by name and had never seen him before the shooting. She also picked defendant 

out of a photographic line-up on April 2, 2009 as the individual who shot Williams.

¶ 9 Donta Mitchell testified that he also attended the showing of ATL with Williams and other 

friends. After the movie, a group of men walked up to Mitchell in the parking lot and he punched 

one of them, later identified as Donnie Moore, in the face. A large fight then broke out among 

several people. He saw Williams and Metayer running towards the fight and a few seconds later 

he heard a gunshot and ran away. He testified that Williams did not have a gun and was not part 

of the fight. On cross-examination, Mitchell was presented with a written statement he gave to 

police and the State’s Attorney on November 19, 2009. He testified that the statement was incorrect

where it stated that Williams was involved in the fight and that he did not tell them that he saw the 

shooter or provide them with a description. Also, on that date, he identified a photograph of Moore 

as the individual he punched.

¶ 10 Devon Pearson testified that on March 31, 2006, he, his brother, defendant, Moore, and 

Jerry Williams (Jerry) went to the Ford City Mall movie theater to see the movie ATL. As they left 

the theater, Moore became involved in a fistfight in the parking lot. At that point, Pearson did not 

see any weapons. During the fight, Pearson heard a gunshot and saw defendant running away with 

a silver gun in his hand. He testified that defendant was only a few steps away from Williams, who 

was lying on the ground. Pearson ran to the car, and he and his brother left the area. He testified 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 4 - 

that he initially told police that he did not know anything about the shooting because he was 

“scared” and “didn’t want to get involved with it.” He later told the detectives that defendant shot 

Williams. On cross-examination, Pearson confirmed that he did not see defendant shoot Williams 

but saw him running away with a gun. 

¶ 11 Moore testified that he went to the movies with defendant and some other friends on March 

31, 2006. He stated that after they left the movie theater, there was an altercation in the parking 

lot. He was involved in a fistfight with another man, and other people also began fighting. He then 

heard a gunshot and saw defendant put a gun in his waistband. Everyone ran away, and he saw a 

man fall to the ground. On December 18, 2009, Moore spoke with the police regarding the 

shooting. Initially, he did not tell the police that defendant shot Williams because he “was scared”

and believed that he was going to be charged with murder. He eventually told the police what 

occurred, which was memorialized in a written statement. He also testified before a grand jury that 

defendant shot Williams. 

¶ 12 On cross-examination, Moore acknowledged that around the time he spoke with the police 

he had some suspicions that defendant was dating the mother of Moore’s child. He also identified 

a photograph of Mitchell as the person he was fighting. Finally, he testified on redirect that he was 

not aware of anyone else having a gun that evening other than defendant.

¶ 13 Levi Ford testified that he previously did not show up to court when he was subpoenaed 

because he and his brother were threatened. He confirmed that he went to see ATL with defendant, 

Moore, and Jerry on March 31, 2006. After the movie, he saw Moore fighting with another man 

in the parking lot and he saw defendant pull a black revolver out of his waistband and shoot at 

someone. They ran to the car and left the area. On October 11, 2008, he gave a statement to the 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 5 - 

police identifying defendant as the individual who shot Williams and he testified to the same before 

a grand jury. 

¶ 14 Robert Rodwell testified that he did not know or remember what occurred on the night of 

March 31, 2006. Although he acknowledged meeting with the police and the State’s Attorney on

April 5, 2010, he testified that he was not taking his medications for his bipolar disorder at the 

time. Rodwell was confronted with his written statement, wherein he claimed that he was at the 

movie theater that evening; he saw a man punch Moore; a large brawl broke out; he saw a gun in 

defendant’s hand; and he heard a gunshot and saw a man fall to the ground. However, in court,

Rodwell testified that he did not remember giving the statement and he did not recognize his 

signature. He further stated that he did not recall any of his grand jury testimony, which was in 

accordance with his written statement, a transcript of which was admitted into the record. On crossexamination, Rodwell testified that he was at home on the night of March 31, 2006.

¶ 15 Jerry testified that on March 31, 2006, he went to see ATL with defendant, Moore, and 

other friends. When he left the movie theater, he saw a large group of men, including Moore, in a 

fistfight. He then heard a gunshot but did not see who fired the shot and did not see defendant with 

a gun. 

¶ 16 According to the transcript of Jerry’s grand jury testimony, which was admitted into 

evidence, he identified defendant as the individual with a revolver who shot Williams that evening 

at the movie theater. In the transcript, Jerry testified that he was not bribed or forced to testify and 

that the police had treated him fairly. However, Jerry testified at trial that his grand jury testimony 

was coerced by Assistant State’s Attorney Pat Morley. 

¶ 17 Chicago police detective Oscar Arteaga testified that he and his partner, Detective Saul Del

Rivero, were assigned to investigate Williams’ murder. He testified that no one coached Jerry on 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 6 - 

what to say to the grand jury. He testified that Rodwell did not appear under the influence of any 

medication and there were no issues with his demeanor when he was interviewed. On crossexamination, he stated that he did not threaten Jerry. 

¶ 18 Detective Del Rivero, who at the time of trial was a field representative for the Fraternal 

Order of Police, testified that on May 12, 2009, he spoke with Jerry at the Cook County Department 

of Corrections. He stated that Jerry initially denied having any knowledge of the shooting but later 

admitted to being present and seeing defendant shoot the victim. Detective Del Rivero stated that

Jerry made the same statements during another conversation in September 2009 and also during 

his grand jury testimony. Detective Del Rivero testified that Jerry was not threatened into giving 

false testimony and was not bribed to testify against defendant. On cross-examination, he 

acknowledged that no weapon, fingerprints, or other ballistics evidence was recovered from the 

scene of the shooting.

¶ 19 The State rested its case-in-chief, and defendant moved for a directed verdict, which the 

court denied. 

¶ 20 The defense called Kimyona Taylor, an investigator with the Cook County Public 

Defender’s Office, to testify. She stated that she contacted Metayer, who refused to speak with 

her. The defense then rested.

¶ 21 The jury found defendant guilty of first-degree murder and that he personally discharged a 

firearm in the commission of the murder.

¶ 22 B. Sentencing Hearing

¶ 23 The court reviewed defendant’s presentence investigation report (PSI), which indicated 

that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was prescribed Wellbutrin. The PSI further 

stated that defendant had a good relationship with his family and two children. It outlined his 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 7 - 

extensive criminal history, which included convictions for cruelty to animals, 

manufacture/delivery of cannabis, possession of cocaine, and unlawful use of a weapon. 

¶ 24 At the sentencing hearing, the court heard from three witnesses. Investigator McGough1

from the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, an expert in gang identification, testified that defendant 

admitted that he was a member of the “Black P-Stone” gang. Williams’ father, Willie Williams 

Jr., and mother, Indira Rutes, gave victim impact statements. Both described their son as a caring 

individual with a lot of potential. His father started a foundation in his son’s honor that mentors 

inner city youth. 

¶ 25 The State argued that the court should give defendant a significant sentence because he 

killed an innocent person with no involvement in gangs or violence. The State further highlighted 

defendant’s extensive criminal history; his gang membership; and his use of drugs. The defense, 

in mitigation, asserted that the court should give defendant a lower sentence because of his bipolar 

disorder and that, even with a minimum sentence of 45 years, defendant would still be in prison 

until he was 70 years of age. 

¶ 26 The court addressed each statutory mitigating factor and found that none applied. The court 

considered defendant’s extensive criminal history and opined that his rehabilitative potential was 

“extremely low” because he has continued to be “armed and dangerous” even after several 

convictions. The court ultimately sentenced defendant to 50 years’ imprisonment for first degree 

murder, plus a mandatory firearm enhancement of 60 years for personally discharging a firearm 

that caused death, for a total of 110 years. Defendant filed a motion to reconsider the sentence, 

which the court denied, stating: 

1

Investigator McGough’s first name does not appear in the record.
No. 1-17-1483 

- 8 - 

“I think [defendant] belongs to a small group of individuals that represent extreme 

threats to society and pose a significant threat to society. That was one of the factors that I 

considered in the sentence I imposed. The sentence is within the statutory guidelines. It’s 

not cruel and unusual, and I think it’s totally appropriate considering all of the facts and 

circumstances of this case, the defendant’s track record, and all of the other factors in 

aggravation and mitigation that I considered.” 

¶ 27 C. Direct Appeal

¶ 28 On direct appeal, defendant argued that: (1) the trial court erred in finding that he failed to 

establish a prima facie claim of racial discrimination during jury selection; (2) the trial court 

improperly weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors in fashioning his sentence; and (3) the 

firearm enhancement was unconstitutionally vague. This court affirmed defendant’s conviction 

and sentence. People v. Fenton, 2015 IL App (1st) 130861-U. The supreme court denied his 

petition for leave to appeal People v. Fenton, No. 119486 (Sept. 30, 2015), and the United States 

Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of certiorari. Fenton v. Illinois, 136 S. Ct. 2514 (June 

27, 2016). 

¶ 29 D. Postconviction Petition

¶ 30 On February 14, 2017, defendant filed the instant pro se postconviction petition containing 

the following claims. His sentence of 110 years’ imprisonment is unconstitutionally excessive 

where the court failed to properly exercise its discretion and to consider his rehabilitative potential, 

mental illness, and youth. He also requests that he be given the opportunity to sufficiently develop 

the record with expert testimony relevant to his youth. Next, defendant claims ineffective 

assistance of trial counsel for failure to investigate several witnesses. As relevant here, defendant 

specifically argues that counsel should have investigated and interviewed Moore, which would 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 9 - 

have revealed Moore’s motivations for his testimony that he now recants and identifies Kenneth 

Bowen as the shooter. Defendant also asserts that counsel failed to investigate Charel Johnson as 

an alibi witness, who would have testified that on March 31, 2006, she was with defendant from 9 

p.m. until the following day. Defendant claims that he attempted to provide the court with 

Johnson’s affidavit, but the Department of Corrections would not accept her correspondence 

because she failed to include his inmate number. Finally, defendant claims ineffective assistance 

of appellate counsel and prosecutorial misconduct, which have not been asserted on appeal.

¶ 31 Attached to the petition is an affidavit from Moore, stating that he “testified falsely at 

[defendant’s] trial” and the “truth is that [defendant] was never at the mall with us.” He further 

avers that he testified falsely to avoid being charged himself and because “a few nights before 3-

31-06” he discovered that defendant was having sexual intercourse with the mother of Moore’s 

child. He continues that he told the police that defendant was the shooter even though he saw 

Kenneth Bowen, also known as “KB,” shoot Williams in the back of the head. Finally, Moore 

states that he would testify to the information in the affidavit. 

¶ 32 On May 5, 2017, the court summarily dismissed the petition. The court found that 

defendant’s argument that his sentence violated the proportionate penalties clause was barred by 

res judicata as it was raised and determined on direct appeal. His sentencing argument based on 

Miller v. Alabama failed as defendant was not a juvenile, his sentence was not mandatory, and the 

trial court considered all the appropriate factors in mitigation and aggravation. As to defendant’s 

claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the court found that defendant failed to support his 

argument with affidavits from the potential alibi witnesses and, even taking defendant’s allegations 

as true, their alleged testimony would not have changed the result at trial where several 

eyewitnesses identified defendant as the shooter. The court also found that trial counsel cross-
No. 1-17-1483 

- 10 - 

examined Moore at trial, thus directly contradicting defendant’s assertion that counsel did not 

investigate or interview Moore. This appeal followed. 

¶ 33 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 34 Defendant limits his arguments on appeal to the following: (1) actual innocence based on 

the recantation affidavit of Moore; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel’s 

failure to investigate and interview Johnson as a potential alibi witness; and (3) constitutional 

violations based on his sentence of 110 years’ imprisonment. 

¶ 35 The Act provides a method for a defendant to collaterally attack a conviction by asserting 

it resulted from a “substantial denial” of his constitutional rights. 725 ILCS 5/1221 (West 2016); 

People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1, 9 (2009). A postconviction proceeding in a noncapital case has 

three stages. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d at 10. At the first stage, a trial court may summarily dismiss a 

postconviction petition within 90 days if it “determines the petition is frivolous or is patently 

without merit.” 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2016). At the second stage, counsel can be 

retained or appointed, and defendant must show that his petition makes a substantial showing of a 

constitutional violation. People v. Morales, 2019 IL App (1st) 160225, ¶ 17. During this stage, the 

State can participate and either answer the petition or move to dismiss. Id. At the third stage, the 

court holds an evidentiary hearing and determines whether the defendant is entitled to relief. Id. 

¶ 36 In the first stage, as we have here, a petition is frivolous or patently without merit only 

when it “has no arguable basis in either fact or law.” Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d at 11-12. A petition has 

no arguable basis in law or fact where it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or a 

fanciful factual allegation.” Id. at 16. Additionally, a defendant’s claim is considered frivolous or 

patently without merit if it is procedurally barred under either res judicata or forfeiture. People v. 

Blair, 215 Ill. 2d 427, 445 (2005). The trial court may summarily dismiss a petition if the defendant 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 11 - 

fails to “either attach the necessary ‘affidavits, record or other evidence,’ or explain their absence” 

(People v. Collins, 202 Ill. 2d 59, 66 (2002)), or if the petition simply alleges “nonfactual and 

nonspecific assertions that merely amount to conclusions (People v. Morris, 236 Ill. 2d 345, 354 

(2010)). We review de novo the summary dismissal of a defendant’s postconviction petition. 

People v. Allen, 2015 IL 113135, ¶ 19.

¶ 37 A. Actual Innocence

¶ 38 On appeal, defendant argues a claim of actual innocence based on the recantation affidavit 

of Moore, which was attached to his petition. An actual innocence claim is cognizable under the 

Act because the conviction of an innocent person violates the due process clause of the Illinois 

Constitution. People v. Washington, 171 Ill. 2d 475, 489 (1996). A review of the record reveals 

that, in his postconviction petition, defendant did not frame his claim as one of actual innocence 

but instead as one of ineffective assistance of counsel. There, he alleged that he was deprived of 

his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel because, among other things, “counsel 

failed to investigate and discover that another committed the crime.” He maintained below, as he 

does here on appeal, that had counsel investigated, he would have learned that “K.B.” (Kenneth 

Brown), was the shooter. He maintained that had counsel investigated and interviewed Moore, he 

would have discovered the contents of Moore’s affidavit, including his motivations for testifying 

as he did and information that Kenneth Bowen was the actual shooter that evening. The trial court, 

in reviewing defendant’s petition, applied the legal test espoused in Strickland v. Washington, 466 

U.S. 668 (1984), as was appropriate, and rejected the ineffective assistance claim.

¶ 39 Pursuant to the Act, “[a]ny claim of substantial denial of constitutional rights not raised in 

the original or an amended petition is waived.” 725 ILCS 5/122-3 (West 2016). “[A]ny issue to be 

reviewed on appeal must be presented in the petition filed in the trial court” (People v. Johnson, 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 12 - 

352 Ill. App. 3d 442, 449 (2004)), and may not be raised for the first time while the matter is on 

review (People v. Jones, 211 Ill. 2d 140, 148 (2004)). See People v. Hunter, 376 Ill. App. 3d 639, 

643 (2007) (review of defendants ineffective assistance claim, which had not been alleged in the 

petition, was denied on appeal). In People v. Jones, we declined consideration where the defendant 

abandoned his claim of actual innocence and reformed it as a cause-and-prejudice theory on 

appeal. 2017 IL App (1st) 123371, ¶ 60.

¶ 40 “The question raised in an appeal from an order dismissing a post-conviction petition is 

whether the allegations in the petition, liberally construed and taken as true, are sufficient to invoke 

relief under the Act.” People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 388 (1998). In this case, it is clear that 

defendant’s claim below was, for all intents and purposes, a claim of actual innocence and is 

framed as such here on appeal. Construing the petition liberally, as we must, we will review 

defendant’s claim of actual innocence as the facts asserted here in support of that claim mimic 

those facts asserted in the petition in support of his ineffectiveness claim below. 

¶ 41 Moore’s recantation affidavit states that he lied in his testimony before the grand jury and 

at trial when he identified defendant as the shooter because he and defendant had argued days 

before the shooting regarding the mother of Moore’s child. Moore knew at the time that Kenneth 

Bowen was the actual shooter, and that defendant was not present that evening. He also averred 

that he was worried that he was going to be charged with the shooting.

¶ 42 The requirements for establishing a claim of actual innocence are as follows:

“[T]he defendant must present new, material, noncumulative evidence that is so 

conclusive it would probably change the result on retrial. [People v. Washington, 171 Ill. 

2d 475, 489 (1996)]. New means the evidence was discovered after trial and could not have 

been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence. See [People v. Burrows, 172 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 13 - 

Ill. 2d 169, 180 (1996)]. Material means the evidence is relevant and probative of the 

petitioner’s innocence. People v. Smith, 177 Ill. 2d 53, 82-83 (1997). Noncumulative means 

the evidence adds to what the jury heard. [People v. Molstad, 101 Ill. 2d 128, 135 (1984)].

People v. Coleman, 2013 IL 113307, ¶ 96.

¶ 43 We do not dispute that Moore’s affidavit constitutes new, noncumulative, and material 

evidence. The deciding factor here, as with many cases involving a claim of actual innocence, is 

the conclusiveness of the new evidence. See People v. Sanders, 2016 IL 118123, ¶ 47 (stating that 

“the conclusiveness of new evidence is the most important element of an actual innocence claim”). 

Our supreme court recently addressed the conclusive-character element in Robinson, 2020 IL 

123849, ¶¶ 48, 56, and stated that it “need not be entirely dispositive” but “requires only that the 

petitioner present evidence that places the trial evidence in a different light and undermines the 

court’s confidence in the judgment.” “Probability, rather than certainty, is the key in considering 

whether the fact finder would reach a different result after considering the prior evidence along 

with the new evidence.” Id at 48. We further note that the Robinson court found it “fundamentally 

illogical” to reject an actual innocence claim on the ground that the new evidence contradicts the 

trial evidence. Id. ¶ 57. In Robinson, the court’s finding that the defendant satisfied the 

requirements for an actual innocence claim was largely based on the lack of physical or forensic 

evidence linking the defendant to the crimes and lack of eyewitness identification of the 

defendant’s involvement in the crimes. Id. ¶ 82.

¶ 44 Here, not only is Moore’s recantation contradicted by his own grand jury and trial 

testimony, but more importantly and in contrast to Robinson, there were three eyewitnesses

(Metayer, Pearson, and Ford) who testified at trial that defendant had a gun on the night of the 

shooting. Specifically, Metayer, who was not affiliated with defendant in any way (she was not 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 14 - 

even aware of defendant’s name at the time of the shooting), unequivocally identified defendant 

as the shooter at trial. Pearson testified that he saw defendant with a gun, he saw Williams lying 

on the ground, and he saw defendant running away with a gun in his hand. Ford testified that he 

saw defendant pull out a gun and shoot at someone. Additionally, Rodwell, according to his

statement to police, saw defendant with a gun during the fight, and Jerry, according to his statement 

to police, saw defendant shoot Williams, though they both recanted their statements to the police 

at trial.

¶ 45 Even without assessing the veracity of Moore’s affidavit, these facts overwhelmingly 

implicate defendant as the shooter, and we do not find that there is a probability that a fact finder 

would reach a different result on retrial. See People v. Morgan, 212 Ill. 2d 148, 155 (2004) (stating 

that because “the recantation of testimony is regarded as inherently unreliable[,] *** the courts 

will not grant a new trial on that basis except in extraordinary circumstances”). Simply put, we 

cannot say that Moore’s affidavit undermines our confidence in the trial court’s finding of guilt. 

For these reasons, we conclude that defendant has not presented a colorable claim of actual 

innocence and the trial court correctly dismissed this claim. 

¶ 46 B. Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel

¶ 47 Defendant next contends that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to 

investigate and interview Charel Johnson as a potential alibi witness. In his postconviction petition, 

defendant claims that Johnson would testify that defendant was with her all evening on March 31, 

2006 and until the morning of April 1, 2006. Defendant stated in his petition that he was unable to 

attach her affidavit to his petition because her correspondence was rejected by the Department of 

Corrections for failing to include his inmate number. The State responds that from the time of 

defendant’s conviction up until the filing of this postconviction petition, defendant had ample time 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 15 - 

to remedy the absent inmate number and to obtain Johnson’s affidavit. The State further argues 

that defendant has failed to discharge his obligation to present supporting documentation under 

the Act.

¶ 48 We first address the sufficiency of defendant’s petition pursuant to the requirements 

contained in section 122-2 of the Act. A defendant’s petition must “clearly set forth the respects 

in which petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated” and have attached affidavits, records, or 

other evidence supporting its allegations. 725 ILCS 5/122-2 (West 2016). If supporting 

documentation is not attached, the petition must explain why. Id. The purpose of the supporting 

documentation requirement is to demonstrate that the petition’s allegations are “capable of 

objective or independent corroboration.” People v. Collins, 202 Ill. 2d 59, 67 (2002). “The failure 

to either attach the appropriate supporting material or explain its absence justifies the summary 

dismissal of a petition.” People v. Reed, 2014 IL App (1st) 122610, ¶ 40; see also People v. Delton, 

227 Ill. 2d 247, 255 (2008) (if petition is not properly supported than it is unnecessary to determine 

whether it set forth the gist of a constitutional claim).

¶ 49 Defendant contends in his brief that it is not necessary for him to include an affidavit from 

Johnson because he has explained the absence of the affidavit and thus the requirements for a 

postconviction petition have been met.

¶ 50 Our supreme court has acknowledged the burdens of requiring the attachment of supporting 

documentation for postconviction petitioners and reiterated that the Act allows for attachment to 

be excused where the failure was explained. People v. Collins, 202 Ill. 2d at 68 (affirmed summary 

dismissal where the defendant did not explain the absence of supporting documentation and an 

explanation could not be inferred from the petition’s allegations); see also Delton, 227 Ill. 2d at 

258 (same). In addition to the statutory provision allowing for excuse of compliance, our supreme 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 16 - 

court has carved out a judicial exception to the supporting documentation requirement whereby a 

lack of an affidavit and lack of an explanation is not fatal to a postconviction petition but only in 

cases where the defendant is claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and the only affidavit that 

would support his allegations would be from his trial counsel. People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4-

5 (1970) (where the court excused the lack of supporting documentation and absence of 

explanation because of the impossibility or difficulty in obtaining an affidavit from his trial 

counsel); People v. Hall, 217 Ill. 2d 324, 333-34 (2005) (where the court found the defendant’s 

explanation for the absence of documentation to “easily be inferred from the allegations of his 

petition and affidavit” because only his counsel’s affidavit could have supported his allegations 

and such would be difficult or impossible to obtain). We also note that there are countless cases, 

largely unpublished, where this court has refused to consider claims involving alibi witnesses that 

did not contain affidavits, or where the affidavits simply lacked notarization, and contained no 

explanation for their absence. For example, in People v. Wideman, 2013 IL App (1st) 102273, ¶ 

18, we stated: “Had Wideman provided an explanation detailing why [the witnesses’] affidavits 

were not notarized, then he may have given the trial court a basis for consideration ***.” 

Additionally, in People v. Brown, 2014 IL App (1st) 122549, ¶¶ 60-61, the court specifically noted 

that the defendant did not attach supporting documentation and did not include an explanation as 

to why they were absent. In contrast, here, defendant has arguably complied with the Act’s 

requirement by providing an explanation as to the missing Johnson affidavit.

¶ 51 We are unable to identify any published cases that expand on what is required for an 

explanation to be sufficient. The only guidance we have on this matter is that incarceration, by 

itself, is not sufficient. See People v. Harris, 2019 IL App (4th) 170261, ¶ 19 (“[I]mprisonment, 

by itself, cannot excuse a defendant’s failure to attach supporting material to a postconviction 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 17 - 

petition.”). Of course, here, defendant has explained that he was unable to secure the affidavit, due 

to no fault of his own, but because Johnson did not include his inmate number on her 

correspondence. Regardless, because the substance of defendant’s allegations, notwithstanding 

their veracity, are insufficient to make even an arguable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, 

we need not determine whether defendant’s explanation was sufficient.

¶ 52 As stated above, first-stage postconviction petitions may only be summarily dismissed if 

they have no “arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d at 11-12. For a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel, we apply the well-known test set forth in Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and adopted by Illinois courts in People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 

504 (1984), although it is a less stringent standard under first stage proceedings. At this stage, a

claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel can only survive summary dismissal if: “(i) it is 

arguable that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (ii) it 

is arguable that the defendant was prejudiced.” Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d at 17. There is a strong 

presumption that counsel’s performance fell within a wide range of reasonable assistance. 

Strickland at 690. It is defendant’s burden to satisfy both prongs, thus courts may resolve 

ineffective assistance claims by deciding either of the prongs. People v. Boyd, 347 Ill. App. 3d 

321, 329 (2004). 

¶ 53 Defense counsel has a professional obligation “to explore all readily available sources of 

evidence that might benefit their clients.” People v. Makiel, 358 Ill. App. 3d 102, 107 (2005). “For 

an attack on the competency of trial counsel to be successful, defendant must demonstrate the 

potential testimony of the witness trial counsel failed to call or contact.” People v. Morris, 335 Ill. 

App. 3d 70, 85 (2002) (citing People v. Guest, 166 Ill. 2d 381, 402 (1995)). Trial counsel’s failure 

to investigate or interview witnesses cannot rise to the level of ineffective assistance where the 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 18 - 

attorney did not know and had no way of knowing of witnesses or evidence that would benefit 

their client’s case. See People v. Irvine, 379 Ill. App. 3d 116, 130 (2008).

¶ 54 Here, defendant’s petition did not include any allegations that he informed trial counsel of 

his alibi or that trial counsel should interview Johnson. Nor is there any evidence in the record that 

would indicate counsel should have known about Johnson or defendant’s alibi. Because there are 

no allegations that counsel was apprised of the purported alibi witness by defendant, we cannot 

find that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or interview Johnson. See People v. 

English, 403 Ill. App. 3d 121, 137-38 (2010). Accordingly, defendant’s claim has no arguable 

basis in fact or law, even if it had been supported by an affidavit from Johnson. 

¶ 55 C. Sentence

¶ 56 Finally, defendant claims that his sentence of 110 years violated the eighth amendment of 

the United States Constitution and the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution. 

For purposes of our review, we set forth the statutory provisions under which defendant was 

sentenced. The sentencing range for first degree murder is 20 to 60 years' imprisonment. 730 ILCS 

5/5–4.5–20(a) (West 2012). A sentencing enhancement of 25-years-to-life applies in cases where 

the defendant personally discharged a firearm that proximately caused the death of another during 

the commission of the offense. 730 ILCS 5/5–8–1(a)(1)(d)(iii) (West 2012). When a jury makes 

such a finding, the court must impose the sentencing enhancement, which runs consecutively to 

the sentence for the underlying offense. Thus, the applicable sentencing range in this case was 45 

years to life. Defendant was sentenced to 50 years on the first-degree murder conviction and 60 

years on the weapons discharge conviction. People v. Fenton, 2015 IL App (1st) 130861-U.

¶ 57 1. Eighth Amendment
No. 1-17-1483 

- 19 - 

¶ 58 The eighth amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments” and is applicable to the 

states through the fourteenth amendment. U.S. Const. amend. VIII; People v. Davis, 2014 IL 

115595, ¶ 18. The United States Supreme Court addressed the effect of the eighth amendment on 

juvenile sentences in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and its progeny. In Miller, the Court 

held that the eighth amendment is violated where a mandatory life sentence without parole is 

imposed upon a juvenile without consideration of the defendant’s youth and its attendant 

characteristics. Id. at 479-80. In accordance with Miller, sentencing courts in homicide cases are 

required to “take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel 

against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.” Id. at 480. The Court later held that 

Miller applied retroactively to collateral review cases (Montgomery v. Louisiana, 575 U.S. 911 

(2016)), and our supreme court found that the reasoning of Miller also applies to discretionary life 

sentences for juveniles. People v. Holman, 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 40. 

¶ 59 Significantly, however, Miller only applies to juvenile offenders and, as seemingly 

arbitrary as the line in the sand may be, our supreme court has not extended Miller’s reasoning to 

apply to adults. People v. Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶ 61 (citing United States v. Williston, 862 F.3d 

1023, 1039-40 (10th Cir. 2017)). In the case at bar, defendant was 20 years old at the time of the 

offense and categorically not a juvenile offender. It has been established that defendants who are 

18 years or older cannot raise a facial challenge to their sentence based on the eighth amendment 

and the Miller line of cases. Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶¶ 59-61. Thus, defendant’s claim of an 

eighth amendment violation is unavailing.

¶ 60 2. Proportionate Penalties Clause

¶ 61 The proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution extends greater protections 

against excessive punishment than the eighth amendment. People v. Fernandez, 2014 IL App (1st) 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 20 - 

120508, ¶ 63 (stating that the “Illinois Constitution places greater restrictions on criminal 

sentencing than the eighth amendment’s prohibition”). The clause provides that “[a]ll penalties 

shall be determined both according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of 

restoring the offender to useful citizenship.” Ill Const. 1970 art. I, § 11. A sentence violates this 

clause if “the punishment for the offense is cruel, degrading, or so wholly disproportionate to the 

offense as to shock the moral sense of the community.” People v. Miller, 202 Ill. 2d 328, 338 

(2002). This provision mandates the balancing of the goals of retribution and rehabilitation, which 

requires a careful consideration of all the factors in aggravation and mitigation. People v. 

Quintana, 332 Ill. App. 3d 96, 109 (2002). We may determine whether a sentence shocks the moral 

sense of the community by considering both objective evidence and the community’s changing 

standard of moral decency. People v. Hernandez, 382, Ill. App. 3d 726, 727 (2008).

¶ 62 We have closely examined defendant’s petition and summarize the substance of his 

proportionate penalty claims in detail here. As his major premise, defendant asserts that his 

“aggregate (110)-year sentence is unconstitutionally excessive, disproportionate and fails to 

consider the ‘mandatory language’ of the constitution that ‘all penalties should have the objective 

of restoring the offender to useful citizenship’ where the confluence of the sentencing statutes, 

which the trial court was required to apply, is absolutely contrary to the constitutional objective of 

the rehabilitation clause, and fails to reasonably allow the sentencing court to fairly assess the 

‘mitigating factors’ of youth, and individualized attendant characteristic’s [sic], brain deficiencies, 

mental health, and other factor’s [sic] before imposing an unsurvivable sentence.” This premise is 

repeated throughout the 35 paragraphs devoted to defendant’s disproportionate sentencing claim, 

with a constant and specific refrain regarding his rehabilitative potential, the constitutional 

requirement of restoring him to useful citizenship, and a litany of his post-sentencing conduct 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 21 - 

which demonstrate that he is “salvageable with obvious rehabilitative potential.” He further alleges 

that the trial court failed to give due consideration to his “serious mental health problems” and 

drug abuse. Defendant argues that “without considering the numerous mitigating factors associated 

with youth and mental health, the court concluded that he ‘exhibited no redeeming value that [the 

court] could hang [its] hat on to say down the road [defendant] may be salvageable.’ ” He alleges 

throughout that the “interaction or confluence of [the] sentencing statutes prevented the court from 

exercising any discretion (or) taking into account his youth or rehabilitative potential.” 

¶ 63 We view defendant’s proportionate penalties challenge as presenting two, although

awkwardly interspersed, claims. The one claim, about which he most persistently advocates with 

supporting facts, is that the court failed to consider his rehabilitative potential and its constitutional 

requirement to consider restoring him to useful citizenship. The other claim is based on his youth. 

We first address those claims in the petition which we view as related to defendant’s youth. 

¶ 64 Citing Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), defendant asserts that he is more similar 

to a “juvenile than a full-grown adult based on his mental health history, individual attendant 

characteristics and other mitigators factors.” In the final two paragraphs of the petition, defendant 

returns to his earlier reference to Miller, and asserts, generally, that his record must contain 

information and factual development regarding how the “ ‘evolving science’ of adolescent 

maturity and brain development should apply to the circumstances in this case.” He then directs 

the court’s attention to attached “validated ‘science’ and ‘social science’ studies” as exhibits, and 

finally, asserts that he must be given “the opportunity to sufficiently develop the record with the 

assistance of counsel due to his noted mental illness.”

¶ 65 Even though an eighth amendment challenge based on Miller is essentially foreclosed for 

defendants over 18 years old, in at least two cases on direct appeal, our supreme court has 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 22 - 

recognized that young adults (those under 21 years old) may rely on the evolving neuroscience 

regarding brain development in juveniles and its correlation to maturity underpinning the Miller 

decision in support of an as-applied challenge pursuant to the proportionate penalties clause of the 

Illinois Constitution. See People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶¶ 43-44; Harris, 2018 IL 121932, 

¶ 48. In Thompson and Harris, the court opened the door for young defendants to demonstrate that 

their own specific characteristics were so like those of a juvenile that imposition of a life sentence, 

absent the necessary considerations established in Miller, would violate the proportionate penalties 

clause. The court instructed, however, that such claims would best be pursued through a 

postconviction petition. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶¶ 43-44 (noting that a 19-year-old defendant 

was “not necessarily foreclosed” from asserting such a claim in postconviction proceedings); 

Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶ 48 (holding that the as-applied, youth-based sentencing claim of an 18-

year-old defendant was “more appropriately raised” in postconviction proceedings). 

¶ 66 In deciding Thompson and Harris, our supreme court had no occasion to provide any 

guidance on the precise allegations necessary in a postconviction petition to pass first-stage muster

for a youth-based sentencing claim. However, we do not read either case to mandate summary 

remand by mere virtue of the fact that one may fall within the classification of a youthful offender. 

If that were the case, appellate review would not only be meaningless, but wholly unnecessary. 

Nevertheless, we are mindful that here we are confronted with defendant’s initial postconviction 

petition, which requires for its viability that petitioner state merely the gist of a constitutional 

claim. It has long since been settled that at this stage, the postconviction petitioner is not expected 

and need not make legal argument or cite to legal authority. People v. Gaultney, 174 Ill. 2d 410, 

418 (1996). And, although the petition need only present a limited amount of detail, the petitioner 

must set forth the specific manner in which his rights were violated. People v. Porter, 122 Ill. 2d 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 23 - 

64, 74 (1988). Thus, at the end of the day, it remains a requirement that to survive summary 

dismissal, the petition must allege something more than nonfactual and nonspecific assertions to 

support its claims. See Morris, 236 Ill. 2d at 354. 

¶ 67 Other than generally alluding to his age at the time of the murder and attaching as exhibits 

research studies on juvenile maturity and brain development, defendant has presented no 

correlation between his age and the emerging brain science. His petition does not contain any 

allegation or argument that there is some specific characteristic, save those previously litigated, 

that could alter the trial court’s sentencing decision if it were to conduct a full Miller-hearing. 

Other than the fact of his age, he offers not even a limited amount of detail to show the specific 

manner in which his right to a fair sentence was violated. Clear from the petition, however, is that 

defendant is aware of the developing caselaw on the issue of youth-based sentencing and takes 

advantage to include, almost verbatim, language from decisional law addressing the issue. 

Defendant’s youth-based claim does no more than allege “nonfactual and nonspecific assertions 

that merely amount to conclusions,” which are insufficient to survive summary dismissal. Morris, 

236 Ill. 2d at 354. Thus, we hold that the trial court’s summary dismissal of defendant’s youthbased proportionate penalties claim was proper.

¶ 68 We next consider defendant’s rehabilitation potential claim. In support of his argument, 

defendant argues that although courts have sentencing discretion, the constitution requires that “all 

penalties be determined both according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of 

restoring the offender to useful citizenship.” He argues that the court must consider the nature and 

circumstances of the crime, as well as the personal history of the offender, his age, demeanor, 

habits, mentality, credibility, character criminal history, general moral character, social 

environment and education, as well as the mitigating factors associated with “youth adolescents.” 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 24 - 

¶ 69 “The purpose of the post-conviction proceeding is to permit inquiry into constitutional 

issues involved in the original conviction that have not already been adjudicated or that could have 

been.” People v. Silagy, 116 Ill. 2d 357, 365 (1987). “[W]hen evaluating a petition, a trial court 

‘may examine the court file of the proceeding in which the petitioner was convicted, any action 

taken by an appellate court in such proceeding and any transcripts of such proceedings.’ ” People 

v. Blair, 215 Ill. 2d 427, 445 (2005) (quoting 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(c) (West 2002)). Issues that 

were litigated at trial, or on direct appeal are barred by res judicata. Id. Where res judicata

precludes a postconviction petitioner from obtaining relief, the claims asserted therein are therefore 

frivolous and patently without merit. Id. 

¶ 70 We note initially that in reviewing the transcripts of defendant’s pretrial fitness hearing, 

not only was defendant determined fit for trial, but the testifying doctor stated that he did not 

observe any symptoms of mental illness on the part of the defendant. Further, at sentencing, the 

trial court noted that defendant had been diagnosed as bipolar. Thus, defendant’s claims of mental 

illness and that the court failed to consider that he was bipolar are factually rebutted by the record.

¶ 71 In evaluating the merits of defendant’s petition, the trial court determined that defendant’s 

argument was barred by res judicata as the same claims presented in the petition had been raised 

and decided on direct appeal. We agree. Defendant’s claims here are not significantly different 

from his claim on direct appeal where he contended that the trial court failed to adequately consider 

mitigating factors at his sentencing hearing. Fenton, 2015 IL App (1st) 130861-U, ¶ 46. There, he 

specifically argued that the trial court did not give sufficient weight to his young age, mental 

illness, and rehabilitative potential. Id. Defendant’s postconviction claims, now framed in the 

context of a proportionate penalties violation, read along those same lines, that is, that his sentence 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 25 - 

was excessive where the sentencing court failed to consider certain mitigating factors, including 

his rehabilitative potential.

¶ 72 Not only does the record before us demonstrate that the sentencing court considered all of 

the necessary factors in mitigation and aggravation, but also this court previously scrutinized the 

sentencing court’s decision making on direct appeal. The sentencing court reviewed the PSI and 

considered defendant’s past juvenile adjudications and adult criminal convictions. Information 

available to the sentencing court was to the effect that as a juvenile, defendant was found liable for 

theft. As an adult, defendant had been convicted of cruelty to animals, manufacture/delivery of 

cannabis, and possession of cocaine. Defendant had additionally been twice convicted of unlawful 

use of a weapon by a felon and was multiple years removed from our society’s demarcation of a 

juvenile. 

¶ 73 On review, we rejected defendant’s sentencing claims and found that the court “was very 

thorough as it discussed all of the statutory mitigating and aggravating factors” and considered the 

information contained in defendant’s PSI, including his age and bipolar diagnosis. Id. ¶¶ 51, 53-

55. We specifically pointed out the sentencing court’s comment that defendant’s rehabilitative 

potential “on a scale of one to ten [is] probably a zero.” We need not replicate our entire analysis 

here. We would, however, emphasize that our analysis of defendant’s sentencing proceedings was 

far from cursory. Having again reviewed those proceedings, we find that the sentencing court 

conducted a full and fair sentencing hearing, which resulted in defendant’s 110-year sentence, due 

in large part to the seriousness of the offense, defendant’s criminal history, and his rehabilitation 

potential. A finding that, incidentally, addresses in the main, defendant’s proportionate penalties 

claim here. 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 26 - 

¶ 74 We recognize that defendant’s potential sentence had a mandatory minimum of 45 years 

(20 years for first degree murder and 25 years for the firearm enhancement, served consecutively). 

Although the court was required to add the firearm enhancement, it was not constrained in deciding 

the appropriate range either for murder or the firearm enhancement. In the exercise of its discretion, 

the court chose to impose a harsher sentence based on the seriousness of the offense and 

defendant’s criminal history. Defendant’s proportionate penalties claim, like his sentencing claim 

on direct appeal, which alleges that the trial court failed to properly consider mitigation factors, 

does not compel yet another rehashing of the sentencing court’s deliberations and, in fact, is barred 

by res judicata. 

¶ 75 Res judicata aside, when we consider, in its totality, defendant’s prior convictions, the 

manner in which this crime was committed, and the seriousness of the same, we cannot say that 

defendant’s sentence, though substantial, was so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the 

moral sense of the community. Thus, we find defendant’s rehabilitation potential based 

proportionate penalties claim to be frivolous and without merit.

¶ 76 Accordingly, we affirm the court’s summary dismissal of defendant’s postconviction 

petition.

¶ 77 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 78 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 79 Affirmed.

¶ 80 JUSTICE FITZGERALD-SMITH, dissenting: 

¶ 81 With greatest respect, I would reverse the trial court’s first-stage, summary dismissal of the 

defendant’s postconviction petition. It is well-established that a postconviction petition may only 

be dismissed at this stage if it “is frivolous or is patently without merit” (725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) 
No. 1-17-1483 

- 27 - 

(West 2018)), meaning it has “no arguable basis either in law or in fact.” People v. Hodges, 234 

Ill. 2d 1, 11-12 (2009). In numerous decisions, this court and other districts of the appellate court 

have reversed trial courts that have either summarily dismissed postconviction petitions at the first 

stage or denied leave to file successive postconviction petitions, where offenders age 18 or older 

have raised claims that in light of recent developments in brain science, the lengthy sentences 

imposed on them without consideration of their youth and rehabilitative potential violated the 

proportionate penalties clause as applied to them, regardless of the violent nature of the offense, 

the offender’s level of involvement in it, the discretionary nature of the sentence, what evidence 

was actually presented or considered at the sentencing hearing, or the absence of factual allegations 

in the petition setting forth how the evolving science of juvenile maturity and brain development 

applied to the offender’s specific circumstances. See, e.g., People v. Chambers, 2021 IL App (4th) 

190151, ¶ 81; People v. Savage, 2020 IL App (1st) 173135, ¶ 76; People v. Ross, 2020 IL App 

(1st) 171202, ¶¶ 28-30, People v. Franklin, 2020 IL App (1st) 171628, ¶¶ 68-69; People v. 

Daniels, 2020 IL App (1st) 171738, ¶¶ 2, 34; People v. Ruiz, 2020 IL App (1st) 163145, ¶¶ 1, 38-

40; People v. Johnson, 2020 IL App (1st) 171362, ¶¶ 1-2, 15-16; People v. Carrasquillo, 2020 IL 

App (1st) 180534, ¶ 109; People v. Minniefield, 2020 IL App (1st) 170541, ¶ 47; People v. Bland, 

2020 IL App (3d) 170705, ¶ 14. Based upon the existence of these cases, I cannot say that the 

claim in this petition meets the standard of having “no arguable basis either in law or in fact,” and 

I would advance the petition for second-stage postconviction proceedings.