2020 IL App (2d) 180323-U 

No. 2-18-0323 

Order entered November 12, 2020 

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as 

precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court

OF ILLINOIS, ) of Kane County. 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 04-CF-1485 

) 

DERRICK D. JORDAN, ) 

) Honorable 

Defendant-Appellant. ) Thomas J. Stanfa, 

) Judge, Presiding. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE McLAREN delivered the judgment of the court. 

Presiding Justice Birkett and Justice Zenoff concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: We affirm the trial court's judgment denying defendant’s postconviction petition 

after a third-stage evidentiary hearing on his claim of actual innocence where the 

court’s finding that the new witness’s testimony was not reliable was not manifestly 

erroneous, and the new evidence would not have changed the result on retrial, due 

to the four eyewitnesses who identified defendant as the shooter. 
2020 IL App (2d) 180323-U 

- 2 -

¶ 2 Following a jury trial, defendant, Derrick D. Jordan, and two of his brothers, Teolia M. 

Jordan, and Steven T. Jordan1, were each convicted of seven counts of attempt first degree murder 

(720 ILCS 5/8-4(a) (West 2004)); (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2004)) arising out of a June 22, 

2004, shooting incident, wherein several men shot at Kalvin Stewart, Gregory Warfield, and others 

in front of 1134 Kane Street in Aurora, in broad daylight. No physical evidence connected 

defendant to the crimes, but he was identified at trial by four eyewitnesses. After defendant and 

his brothers were found guilty, defendant was sentenced to seven concurrent terms of 171⁄2 years 

in the Department of Corrections. 

¶ 3 In 2017 defendant filed an amended postconviction petition asserting his actual innocence 

and alleging that his due process rights were violated. Following a third-stage evidentiary hearing, 

the trial court denied his petition and defendant now appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm 

the judgment of the trial court. 

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 A. Trial Evidence and Proceedings 

¶ 6 We begin by summarizing the evidence adduced at defendant’s trial. Gregory Warfield 

testified that at about 3:15 p.m. on June 22, 2004, he was outside his house on Kane Street wiping 

down his car in his driveway. Gregory saw defendant and his two brothers and codefendants, 

Teolia and Steven, get out of a beige truck and walk up the street toward him and his friends, 

Ronnie Green, Casey Stewart, Kalvin “BoPeep” Stewart, and “Papoo,” whose real name Gregory 

could not remember. Defendant, Teolia and Steven had guns. They chased after Kalvin Stewart 

1 The denial of Steven T. Jordan’s postconviction petition alleging actual innocence is the subject 

of a separate appeal, No. 2-18-0322. 
2020 IL App (2d) 180323-U 

- 3 -

and Papoo, shooting at them. Gregory noticed a fourth person but did not recognize him. This 

fourth person pointed his gun at Gregory and fired four shots. Defendant, Teolia, and Steven did 

not shoot at Gregory. Defendant, Teolia, and Steven were dressed in black, but they were not 

wearing hoods on their heads. Gregory called the police, and they arrived 12 to 15 minutes later. 

¶ 7 Gregory testified that “TD, Stevie, and [defendant]” were the shooters, but that he did not 

know at whom they were shooting. Gregory admitted that he lied to the police about not knowing 

who BoPeep and Papoo were because they were his friends and he did not want to get them 

involved. On June 28, 2004, Gregory identified defendant, Teolia, and Steven as the shooters in a 

photo lineup at the Aurora police station. 

¶ 8 Gregory also testified that there was some animosity between Kalvin Stewart and 

defendant, and Gregory may have told an assistant state’s attorney that Kalvin Stewart shot back. 

Gregory admitted that he was a convicted felon. He had been convicted of possession of a 

controlled substance with intent to deliver and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. 

¶ 9 Ronnie Green testified that he was at Gregory’s house on Kane Street just before the 

shooting, when he saw four men dressed in black, carrying guns, running on the sidewalk. They 

were not wearing hoodies. Green identified three of the men as defendant, Teolia, and Steven. 

Defendant and Steven shot at BoPeep (Kalvin Stewart) and Papoo. Green initially denied 

identifying defendant, Teolia, and Steven at the scene, but later claimed that he told the police that 

“TD, Stevie, and [defendant]” were the shooters. Green denied that he was merely repeating what

he heard Gregory tell the police. Green told the police that he did not know the two men (BoPeep 

and Papoo) being shot at because he wanted to protect his friends and “associates.” On June 29, 

2004, during a photo lineup, Green told the police he did not recognize anyone because he did not 

want to get involved. Green admitted that he was a convicted felon; he was convicted of unlawful 
2020 IL App (2d) 180323-U 

- 4 -

possession of a controlled substance, delivery of a controlled substance, and delivery of a look-alike substance.

¶ 10 Casey Stewart testified that on the day of the shooting he drove to Warfield’s house at 

about 2:30 p.m. About 20 minutes later he saw defendant in black clothes with a dark object in his 

hand. Casey thought “it was going to start shooting,” so he ran into the Warfields’ house. Casey 

testified that defendant was alone. Casey left the scene before the police arrived, but he identified 

defendant three months after the shooting when the police asked him about it. He identified 

defendant as the person he saw on June 22, 2004, in a photo lineup. Casey did not know of any 

animosity between Kalvin Stewart and defendant, but he heard they were dating the same girl. 

¶ 11 Patsy Harris, a hearing-impaired individual, testified through a sign-language interpreter 

that on the day of the shooting she was at her cousin Vivian’s house on Kane Street. Harris saw 

four people wearing hoods pull up and walk by. They started shooting. Harris could not identify 

defendant, Teolia, or Steven as the shooters, and she did not see them at the scene of the shooting.

The police showed Harris a photo lineup nine months after the shooting, but there was no signlanguage interpreter present. Harris identified only Teolia as one of the shooters, because the police 

asked her only about his photo. Harris asked the state’s attorney’s office to relocate her because 

she was afraid.

¶ 12 Destiny Anderson testified that on the day of the shooting she was outside her home on 

Kane Street when she saw two or four people come out of nowhere and start shooting. She did not 

know at whom they were shooting. When she heard the gunshots, she ran inside her house. 

Anderson did not see the shooters because they were wearing black sweatshirts with hoods pulled 

up over their heads. At the scene of the shooting Anderson told the police that defendant, Teolia, 
2020 IL App (2d) 180323-U 

- 5 -

and Steven were the shooters. Anderson testified that she said this because her uncle, Gregory 

Warfield, told her that it was defendant, Teolia, and Steven, and she repeated this to the police. 

¶ 13 Vivian Warfield, a hearing-impaired individual, testified through a sign-language 

interpreter that, on the day of the shooting she was outside her home on Kane Street with her 

family. She noticed four men walk by dressed in dark clothes. She felt and heard shots fired so 

she crouched down underneath her car. Vivian found out right after the shooting that it was the 

Jordan brothers. Vivian testified that she could not identify defendant, Teolia, or Steven, as the 

shooters. She did not see them at the scene of the shooting. Vivian explained that she identified 

defendant, Teolia, and Steven as the shooters to the police at the scene of the shooting because her 

great-niece, Destiny, told her they were the shooters. When the police spoke to her, the following 

day they did not bring a sign-language interpreter, but Destiny interpreted for Vivian. During 

cross-examination Vivian testified that the only reason she identified defendant, Teolia, and Steven

out of a photo lineup the following day is because she knew they were brothers and she knew them. 

On redirect Vivian testified that she was afraid.

¶ 14 James “Papoo” Fultz, a convicted felon, testified that he was on Kane Street in front of 

Gregory Warfield’s house with his friend BoPeep (Kalvin Stewart), when Kalvin said, “there they 

go” and shots were fired. Fultz and Kalvin ran in different directions. Fultz could not identify the 

shooters and denied telling the police that he recognized defendant as one of the shooters.

¶ 15 Aurora police detective Martin Sigsworth testified that on September 15, 2004, he 

interviewed Fultz. Fultz told Sigsworth that on June 22, 2004, he was talking to Kalvin Stewart 

when defendant and another person started shooting at them. Sigsworth also testified that the day 

after the shooting he met with Vivian Warfield at a driveway on Kane Street. Sigsworth knew 

Vivian was deaf, but he did not bring a sign-language interpreter. However, Vivian indicated that 
2020 IL App (2d) 180323-U 

- 6 -

she could read lips. Vivian identified defendant, Teolia, and Steven as the shooters in a photo 

lineup. Vivian pointed to a photo of defendant, but Vivian did not use his name. She said defendant 

had a gun. 

¶ 16 Aurora police officer Douglas Podschweit testified that at approximately 3:15 p.m. on the 

day of the shooting, he went to Kane Street following a dispatch call of shots fired. Gregory 

Warfield told him that the shooters were “the Jordans,” specifically, defendant, “TD Jordan,” and 

Steven Jordan. Gregory said that a fourth person also fired shots. Green told Podschweit that the 

shooters were “the Jordans,” but Green did not use their first names. Green may have heard what 

Gregory told Podschweit. Destiny Anderson told Podschweit that she knew that three of the four 

shooters were “the Jordans” but did not know who the fourth shooter was. 

¶ 17 Aurora police detective Wayne Biles testified that during a photo lineup conducted on June 

28, 2004, Gregory Warfield identified defendant, Teolia, and Steven as the shooters. On June 29, 

2004, Green met with Biles when he checked in for parole. Green did not identify anyone during 

a photo lineup. Green told Biles that when he named defendant, Teolia, and Steven as the shooters 

at the scene, he was only repeating what he heard Gregory tell the police. Green told Biles that he 

could not say it was “the Jordans.” On September 20, 2004, Green identified defendant, Teolia, 

and defendant as the shooters in another photo lineup, and Kendrick Elliott as the person who shot 

him.

¶ 18 Defense witness, Latrina Fitzpatrick, Teolia’s girlfriend, testified that on the day of the 

shooting she and Teolia threw a party for Teolia’s son at their home. Teolia was home all day in 

the courtyard, grilling food. Latrina saw Steven at the party but did not see defendant. 

¶ 19 The jury found defendant guilty of attempted first degree murder, and the trial court 

sentenced defendant to seven terms of 171⁄2 years’ imprisonment to run concurrently. 
2020 IL App (2d) 180323-U 

- 7 -

¶ 20 B. Post-Conviction Proceedings 

¶ 21 Defendant and his brothers, again represented by the same attorney (this time, from the 

Office of the State Appellate Defender), appealed to this court. We affirmed their convictions in a 

consolidated disposition. See People v. Jordan, Nos. 2-06-1147, 2-06-1148, & 2-06-1149 cons. 

(2009) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). In February 2010, defendant, Teolia, 

and Steven filed a joint postconviction petition through counsel. In April 2010 counsel filed a 

supplemental postconviction petition on behalf of defendant. That attorney withdrew from 

representing defendant, Teolia, and Steven. In March 2017, new counsel filed an amended 

postconviction petition on behalf of defendant alleging, inter alia, a claim of actual innocence. 

¶ 22 The amended petition included two affidavits, one of Jesus Quintanilla and one of Kalvin 

Stewart. Quintanilla averred that after he was paroled from prison in 2005, he met with Daniel 

Mata in Aurora. Quintanilla knew Mata previously, and they had a long conversation. Mata told 

Quintanilla that he witnessed the June 2004 shooting on Kane Street and that neither defendant 

nor Steven were the shooters.

¶ 23 The petition noted that Mata was in federal custody in Texas facing charges and that 

defense counsel was unable to interview him to determine the truthfulness of Quintanilla’s or 

Mata’s versions of events.

¶ 24 Also attached to the amended petition was an affidavit of Kalvin Stewart dated June 21, 

2016. Kalvin attested that he was on Kane Street on June 22, 2004, when the shooting occurred. 

Kalvin stated that he saw the four shooters clearly and was certain that defendant was not one of 

them. He knew defendant for approximately 18 years at that point. Kalvin never spoke to the police 

about the shooting because he did not want to get involved. Finally, Kalvin averred, “Only now 
2020 IL App (2d) 180323-U 

- 8 -

am I willing to come forward with the information that I know about the shooting, because 

[defendant] has been convicted of a shooting that he did not do and was not involved with.” 

¶ 25 The State moved to dismiss all of defendant’s claims in the 2010 and 2017 petitions. The 

court granted the State’s motion as to all but defendant’s actual innocence claim. The State noted 

in its answer to defendant’s actual innocence claim, that in Teolia’s postconviction case, affidavits 

of Kalvin Stewart and Gregory Warfield were filed. The State also noted that in Teolia’s case, we

determined that Kalvin’s affidavit was newly discovered evidence that warranted an evidentiary 

hearing regarding Teolia’s actual innocence claim. See People v. Teolia Jordan, 2016 IL App (2d) 

130463-U. The State also noted that although Gregory had recanted his earlier identification of 

Teolia and provided an affidavit in support of Teolia’s postconviction petition, Gregory reaffirmed 

his earlier identification of defendant and Steven as the shooters. The State also denied the 

assertions made in Kalvin’s affidavit.

¶ 26 On March 21, 2018, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s and Steven’s 

postconviction petitions at which Kalvin Stewart was the sole witness.

¶ 27 Kalvin Stewart testified as follows. In 2004 his nickname was BoPeep. Kalvin had known 

defendant and Steven for “[p]robably over 30 years,” and he identified them in court. On the day 

of the shooting at about 3:15 Kalvin was walking on Kane Street with Fultz when “some shooting 

went on.” Kalvin saw the shooters. He was about 60 to 70 feet away from them and two houses 

away from the Warfield house. Shots were fired in his direction. Kalvin and James Fultz ran away 

together. Fultz’s nickname was Papoo. Neither of the shooters were defendant or Steven Jordan. 

Kalvin testified that he was not the intended victim of the shooting. Kalvin did not speak with the 

police about the shooting because the state’s attorney’s office did not contact him. Had that office 

contacted Kalvin, he doubted whether he would have spoken with them. After the shooting the 
2020 IL App (2d) 180323-U 

- 9 -

police did not talk to Kalvin and he did not seek them out to tell them what he knew. The assistant 

State’s attorney asked, “Would it be fair to say that you and the police did not see eye to eye back 

then?” Kalvin replied, “Correct.” Kalvin testified that he would not assist the police in their 

investigation. He would not have spoken with defense counsel’s investigator either.

¶ 28 Kalvin also testified that he was incarcerated in 2008 for federal and state narcotics 

convictions for which he served eight years. Kalvin was not in custody when defendant’s trial took 

place in 2005, and he was not aware of the trial, testifying:

“Well, actually, I didn’t know they was [sic] charged with shooting at us, period. I just 

heard that they lost on trial or something for shooting on Kane Street or some stuff like 

that, but I never was told about them, you know, being charged for shooting at us. I never 

was told that.” 

Kalvin testified that he did not know that defendant had been charged until he saw it “in the 

newspaper” but “I can’t tell you the exact date.” 

¶ 29 After Kalvin’s testimony, defense counsel noted that Quintanilla was under subpoena but 

not in court that day. The court took a short recess while counsel tried to find Quintanilla, but when 

he could not, counsel told the court he had been instructed by defendant to proceed with 

Quintanilla. Instead, defense counsel asked the court to consider his affidavit, and the court agreed 

to do so. 

¶ 30 On March 21, 2018, after argument, the trial court found that Kalvin Stewart was not 

credible and recounted the evidence against defendant provided at trial. The court also determined 

that the statements contained in Quintanilla’s affidavit regarding Mata’s statements to him were 

hearsay. Further, there was no affidavit of Mata. Therefore, the trial court gave Quintanilla’s 
2020 IL App (2d) 180323-U 

- 10 -

affidavit “the weight to which it’s deserved.” Thereafter, the court denied defendant’s actual 

innocence claim and dismissed his amended postconviction petition. 

¶ 31 On March 27, 2018, defendant filed a motion for reconsideration that the trial court denied 

on April 12, 2018. Defendant filed his notice of appeal on April 26, 2018. 

¶ 32 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 33 The Post-Conviction Hearing Act provides a three-stage procedure by which a criminal 

defendant can assert that “in the proceedings which resulted in his or her conviction there was a 

substantial denial of his or her rights under the Constitution of the United States or of the State of 

Illinois or both.” 725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2018). At the first stage, the circuit court has 90 

days to review a petition and may summarily dismiss it if the court finds it is frivolous and patently 

without merit. 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2018). If the petition is not dismissed within that 

90-day period, the circuit court must docket it for further consideration. 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(b) 

(West 2018). 

¶ 34 At the second stage of postconviction proceedings, counsel may be appointed for 

defendant, if defendant is indigent. 725 ILCS 5/122-4 (West 2018). After counsel has made any 

necessary amendments to the petition, the State may move to dismiss a petition or an amended 

petition pending before the court. 725 ILCS 5/122-5 (West 2018). If that motion is denied, or if no 

motion to dismiss is filed, the State must answer the petition, and, barring the allowance of further 

pleadings by the court, the proceeding then advances to the third stage, a hearing wherein the 

defendant may present evidence in support of the petition. 725 ILCS 5/122-6 (West 2018). 

¶ 35 At a third-stage hearing the defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence a 

substantial violation of a constitutional violation. People v. Coleman, 2013 IL 113307, ¶ 92. The 

trial court serves as the fact finder and, therefore, it is the court’s function to determine witness 
2020 IL App (2d) 180323-U 

- 11 -

credibility, decide the weight to be given testimony and evidence, and resolve any evidentiary 

conflicts. See People v. English, 2013 IL 112890, ¶ 23. Thus, we will not reverse the court’s denial 

of a postconviction petition following an evidentiary hearing unless the denial was manifestly 

erroneous. See People v. Beaman, 229 Ill. 2d 56, 72 (2008). A decision is manifestly erroneous 

only if it contains error that is clearly evident, plain, and indisputable. People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 

319, 333 (2009). 

¶ 36 The due process clause of the Illinois Constitution affords postconviction petitioners the 

right to assert a freestanding claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence. Id. at 

333. Evidence in support of a claim of actual innocence must be: (1) newly discovered; (2) not 

discoverable earlier through the exercise of due diligence; (3) material and not merely cumulative; 

and (4) of such conclusive character that, when considered along with the evidence that was 

presented at trial, the new evidence would probably change the result on retrial. People v. Sanders, 

2016 IL 118123, ¶ 24. 

¶ 37 Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his amended postconviction petition 

because Kalvin Stewart’s testimony that defendant was not the shooter was conclusive evidence 

that would likely change the result on retrial. The State counters that Kalvin’s testimony was not 

conclusive evidence that would probably change the result on retrial because Kalvin was not 

credible.

¶ 38 The purpose of the third-stage evidentiary hearing in this case was to determine whether 

the new evidence was of such conclusive character that it would probably change the result on 

retrial. To make this determination, the trial court was required to assess the credibility of Kalvin 

Stewart. Our supreme court has described the role of the trial court as follows: “the circuit court 

serves as the fact finder, and, therefore, it is the court’s function to determine witness credibility, 
2020 IL App (2d) 180323-U 

- 12 -

decide the weight to be given testimony and evidence, and resolve any evidentiary conflicts.” 

People v. Domagala, 2013 IL 113688, ¶ 34; see also People v. Gonzalez, 407 Ill.App.3d 1026, 

1036 (2011) (“Credibility determinations such as this [at a third-stage evidentiary hearing] are 

properly made by the trier of fact, and we have no basis in the record for second-guessing the trial 

court’s judgment”). This is a comprehensive approach and involves credibility determinations that 

are uniquely appropriate for trial judges to make.” People v. Coleman, 2013 IL 113307, ¶ 97. 

¶ 39 The trial court did not commit manifest error in its finding that Kalvin’s testimony at the 

evidentiary hearing was unreliable. Kalvin’s testimony that defendant was not one of the shooters 

was contradicted by five witnesses, four who identified defendant as one of the shooters, and one 

who placed defendant at the scene of the shooting. Gregory Warfield identified defendant as one 

of the shooters to the police immediately after the shooting and in open court during trial. Ronnie 

Green identified defendant in a photo lineup and in open court at trial. At trial, Casey Stewart 

identified defendant as the man wearing black carrying a black object at the scene of the shooting.

Vivian Warfield identified defendant as one of the shooters in a photo lineup. At the scene of the 

shooting, Destiny Anderson identified defendant as one of the shooters. Although Vivian and 

Destiny recanted their identifications of defendant at trial, Vivian explained that she was afraid, 

and we note that recantations are inherently unreliable. See People v. Morgan, 212 Ill. 2d 148, 155 

(2004). 

¶ 40 In addition, contrary to Kalvin’s testimony, Fultz testified at trial that he and Kalvin ran in 

different directions when shots were fired. Kalvin testified that they ran together and did not “break 

apart.” The testimony of the witnesses that defendant was the shooter, taken together with the other 

discrepancies between various witnesses’ testimony and Kalvin’s testimony, support the trial 

court’s finding that Kalvin was not credible. We also note that Kalvin gave no explanation for why 
2020 IL App (2d) 180323-U 

- 13 -

he waited 12 years to come forward with his allegedly exculpatory information. Thus, Kalvin’s

testimony was not of such a conclusive character that, when considered along with the trial 

evidence, would probably lead to a different result on retrial. Accordingly, the trial court’s denial 

of defendant’s amended postconviction petition was not manifestly erroneous.

¶ 41 Defendant cites Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319, to support his argument. In Ortiz, our supreme court 

granted the defendant a new trial based on the testimony of a newly discovered additional 

eyewitness. The court held that the testimony was newly discovered where the witness did not 

admit to having witnessed the incident until more than 10 years after trial and made himself 

unavailable as a witness when he moved to a neighboring state shortly after the murder. Id. at 325. 

However, in Ortiz, the trial court did not assess the credibility of the testimony provided by the 

new witnesses. Here, the court found that Kalvin was not credible. Thus, Ortiz is distinguishable 

from this case.

¶ 42 Defendant also contends that Quintanilla’s affidavit supports his claim of actual innocence. 

Because the Rules of Evidence are “inapplicable” to postconviction proceedings (See Ill. R. Evid. 

1101(b)(3) (eff. Sept. 17, 2019)), hearsay can be considered in postconviction hearings. During a 

third-stage evidentiary hearing, the court decides the weight to be given the hearsay evidence and 

resolves any evidentiary conflicts. See People v. Velasco, 2018 IL App (1st) 161683, ¶ 118. As to 

a claim of actual innocence at the third stage, the court must necessarily consider whether the new 

evidence would ultimately be admissible at retrial. Id. Here, Quintanilla’s averment that Mata told 

him that defendant was not one of the shooters was contradicted by four eyewitnesses who 

identified defendant as one of the shooters. Thus, even taken as true, Quintanilla’s averments 

would not have changed the result on retrial. 
2020 IL App (2d) 180323-U 

- 14 -

¶ 43 Finally, we take judicial notice of People v. Teolia Jordan, 2016 IL App (2d) 130463-U. 

See Ortiz, 196 Ill. 2d at 265 (the supreme court took judicial notice of a Rule 23 order in a 

codefendant’s case). In Teolia Jordan, we vacated the trial court’s dismissal of Teolia’s claim of 

actual innocence during the second stage of a postconviction proceeding, and we remanded the 

case for a third-stage evidentiary hearing. Id. ¶ 49. In Teolia Jordan, Kalvin Stewart’s 2012 

affidavit was supported by other evidence not present in this case, namely, Teolia’s alibi testimony

that was corroborated by four witnesses and Gregory Warfield’s affidavit wherein he recanted of 

his identification of Teolia of one of the shooters, leaving Green as the only eyewitness implicating 

Teolia. Teolia Jordan, 2016 IL App (2d) 130463-U, ¶ 47. Most notable for our purposes here, in 

his affidavit Gregory Warfield reaffirmed his identification of defendant and Steven as the 

shooters. Id. ¶ 33. 

¶ 44 In this case Kalvin provided no expanation regarding why he provided an affidavit in 

Teolia’s case in 2012 but waited until 2016, 12 years after the shooting, to provide an affidavit in 

this case. This fact, while not dispositive, supports the trial court’s finding that Kalvin was not 

credible. Further, Gregory Warfield’s averment in Teolia’s case renaming defendant as one of the 

shooters, supports our conclusion that Kalvin’s and Quintanilla’s averments would not have 

changed the result on retrial. 

¶ 45 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

¶ 46 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 47 The judgment of the circuit court of Kane County is affirmed. 

¶ 48 Affirmed.