Opinion ID: 1231452
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: Michael Cheeks, Maria Brown, and their child moved into a home on Hickok Street in University Park, Illinois in November 1995. The home was rented from Brown's cousin, and only Brown's name was on the lease. In March 1996, while Brown and Cheeks were still living together, Brown began dating Derrick Peterson without telling Cheeks. On August 30, 1996, Brown informed Cheeks that he could no longer live in the Hickok Street home. Nonetheless, Cheeks was at the home on the morning of September 22, 1996. Brown called Cheeks's mother later that day and asked her to tell Cheeks not to come to Brown's home that night. Brown could hear Cheeks in the background during the conversation and heard his mother give him the message. That night, Brown went to sleep in the Hickok Street residence while Peterson watched television in her bedroom. Peterson, fully clothed, later woke Brown, wearing a nightshirt, to say he thought someone was in the house. Brown got out of bed and encountered Cheeks in the hallway. After Cheeks let go of Brown, she went to her bedroom to call 911. Cheeks came into her bedroom holding a knife and cut the phone cord. When Cheeks saw Peterson, Cheeks said, You don't have a man in my house, do you? ... Man, get out of my house before I kill you. Peterson tried to run out of the house but fell in the hallway, and Brown could hear the two men struggling. She followed the men down the hallway and asked Cheeks what he had done. When a motion sensor light came on, she saw a pool of blood. Brown suggested that Peterson sit down because he was losing blood, and Cheeks pushed Peterson to the ground. An officer arrived shortly thereafter and found Cheeks outside with his hand on the door handle of a car's driver's side. After the officer told Cheeks to lay down, Cheeks said, Go ahead and shoot me to the officer three or four times. Paramedics arrived within a few minutes, but Peterson had passed away. The coroner later concluded that Peterson died from a single stab wound to the chest. Cheeks was charged with Peterson's murder and with home invasion in Illinois state court. During the ensuing bench trial, Cheeks received a letter from Brown that said, I must make you pay for what you did when I take the stand.... I'm still confused about that night you know I really don't know exactly what I said in my statement ... I held myself responsible for his life so now I have to make sure that you get held responsible for his death instead of me ... when I'm done with you believe me you will never see the light of day if I have anything to do with it and I do cause what the jury is gonna think of you when I leave the stand is that you deserve life.... The letter also said, you know he [Peterson] could have killed you but he didn't he spared your life ... maybe you was afraid maybe he intimidated by being so much bigger than you and not showing any fear. The letter also asks, Why did you come home? Cheeks's counsel used the letter to cross examine Brown at trial. Brown testified at trial and said at one point that Cheeks did not have permission to be in her home the evening of Peterson's death. At another point, she was asked, [I]s it fair to say that Michael Cheeks was, in fact, living at the location on Hickok after August 30, 1996? She responded, He was there after that but not with my permission, yes. She also testified that she considered him not living at the house after August 30, though she acknowledged that she had not had him removed when he subsequently came back. In response to the question, And at that time Michael Cheeks was still living in your house on September 21, 1996; is that correct?, Brown answered, He was still there. An investigating officer testified that he found possessions belonging to Cheeks at the Hickok residence and that Cheeks's identification cards showed he lived at the Hickok address. Law enforcement officials also testified that they saw what appeared to be blood on the waist-high kitchen window, that Cheeks's hat was found in the sink below the window, and that a box of kitty Utter partially blocked the locked back door when they arrived. One officer testified that after receiving his Miranda rights, Cheeks said he had entered through the back door but then had no response to the question of how he could have done so without disturbing the box of kitty litter. At the close of the evidence and after hearing arguments from both sides, the judge found Cheeks guilty of murder and home invasion. At the sentencing hearing, the judge stated he had decided to impose a sentence above the statutory minimum because Cheeks was on parole at the time of the offense, had been in and out of the criminal justice system for the previous eleven years, and had a criminal history including stolen cars, drug dealing, and drug possession. The judge sentenced Cheeks to concurrent terms of thirty-five years' imprisonment on the murder charges and twenty years' imprisonment for home invasion. Following the trial, Brown wrote additional letters to Cheeks. In one, she wrote: I was advised that was the way to go... I wanted you to go to [j]ail for my o[w]n personal reasons and who knows maybe if I had told the truth about you living their you wouldn't have so much time, but I seen a way to get you out of my life and I took it. In another letter, she wrote: ... Oh and no hard feelings about you not living their you see I wanted you to go to jail and if I had actually let someone know that you was living their you may have not went at least that is what was advised of me the very first night. She signed this letter, gotta go ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha your grim reaper. After receiving these post-trial letters, Cheeks filed a pro se petition in Illinois state court under Illinois's Post-Conviction Hearing Act. He argued that his counsel was ineffective for failing to reveal perjury by the State's key witness and attached copies of the two post-trial letters. An Illinois Circuit Court judge denied the request. Cheeks then appealed, arguing that the trial court should have considered the post-conviction petition as a claim under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1401, which provides a statutory means of obtaining relief from certain judgments, including those based on perjured testimony. The Illinois Appellate Court agreed and concluded that Cheeks had stated a claim under that provision. Illinois v. Cheeks, 318 Ill.App.3d 919, 252 Ill.Dec. 377, 742 N.E.2d 915, 922 (Ill.App.Ct.2001). Back in the Illinois Circuit Court, Cheeks moved to vacate the judgment pursuant to 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1401 and again argued that Brown had given false testimony at his trial as evidenced by the letters he had received from her. The parties filed a stipulation that, if called to testify, Brown would testify that the statements made by her in the letters were true. The Circuit Court denied Cheeks's motion to vacate. After Cheeks moved for reconsideration, the court held a hearing. Brown testified, saying that on the date of the incident, Cheeks lived with her on a part time basis and was free to come and go as he pleased. The Circuit Court denied the motion for reconsideration, concluding that the position Brown took at the hearing as to whether Cheeks lived at the residence on the date of Peterson's death was yes and no, which is pretty much the position she took during the course of the trial. Cheeks appealed, and the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed, saying that Cheeks had not proved by clear and convincing evidence that Brown's testimony was perjured. It noted that Brown testified at trial both that she did and did not consider Cheeks to live at the Hickok residence between August 30, 1996 and September 23, 1996. And, said the Appellate Court, she testified to the same at the section 2-1401 hearing. In addition, the Appellate Court ruled that the post-trial letters contained evidence that was cumulative to that presented at trial since the letter received during trial contained the statement, why did you come home, and Cheeks used this statement as a basis for extensive cross examination regarding whether Cheeks lived at the residence on the night of Peterson's death. The court therefore affirmed the Circuit Court's denial of Cheeks's motion to vacate the judgment. The Supreme Court of Illinois denied leave to appeal. Cheeks then filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, alleging that the State knowingly used perjured testimony to obtain [the] conviction. The district court denied Cheeks's habeas request and ruled that Cheeks had not demonstrated that the state court's holding that Brown did not commit perjury was an unreasonable determination of the facts. It concluded that the trial and appellate courts' findings that Brown did not commit perjury are at least minimally consistent with the evidence. It did not obtain the trial court transcripts before making this determination (and it seems to us a difficult determination to make without the transcripts; they have been added to the record after argument on appeal). Cheeks appeals the denial of his request for a writ of habeas corpus.