Court Opinion

ID: 9826555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 16:06:42.51708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:25:12.238224
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 210404-U

                                           No. 1-21-0404

                                   Order filed September 1, 2023

                                                                                    FIFTH DIVISION

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 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

  THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                   )       Appeal from the
                                                         )       Circuit Court of
         Plaintiff-Appellee,                             )       Cook County.
                                                         )
  v.                                                     )       No. 84 C 009282(03)
                                                         )
  JAMES ALLEN,                                           )       Honorable
                                                         )       Diana L. Kenworthy,
         Defendant-Appellant.                            )       Judge presiding.

       JUSTICE MITCHELL delivered the judgment of the court.
       Presiding Justice Delort and Justice Lyle concurred in the judgment.

                                              ORDER

¶1     Held: The trial court did not err when it denied James Allen’s motion for leave to file a
       successive post-conviction petition because his claim of actual innocence was not free
       standing and he failed to establish cause and prejudice when alleging constitutional
       violations.

¶2     Defendant James Allen appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for leave to file a

successive post-conviction petition. The issue presented is whether the trial court erred in denying

defendant’s motion because defendant failed to raise a viable claim of actual innocence or establish

cause and prejudice for his failure to assert constitutional violations in earlier proceedings. For the

reasons explained below, we affirm.
No. 1-21-0404

¶3                                       BACKGROUND

¶4     In June 1984, Chicago police discovered Carl Gibson shot to death on the 73rd Street exit

ramp of the Chicago Skyway. The murder was linked to a major drug dealer, Charles Ashley, whom

Chicago police were already investigating through a coordinated effort with the State’s Attorney’s

office. During the investigation, Darryl Moore, who worked as an “enforcer” in the drug operation,

placed a recorded call from the State’s Attorney’s office to suspect Henry Griffin, in which the two

discussed details of the Gibson murder, including defendant’s participation. The investigating

Assistant State’s Attorney listened on another phone and heard police officers arrest Griffin.

Defendant was arrested later the same day.

¶5     A grand jury indicted defendant, Griffin, and Ashley on charges of conspiracy, solicitation

to commit murder, and first-degree murder. Among others, the investigating ASA and Moore

testified against defendant at trial. In July 1985, a jury found defendant guilty of murder and

conspiracy and the trial judge imposed a natural life sentence. On direct appeal, this court affirmed

defendant’s murder conviction, but vacated the conspiracy conviction. People v. Allen, 184 Ill.

App. 3d 438 (1989). Our supreme court denied leave to appeal. People v. Allen, No. 68786, 136

Ill. 2d 580 (1989).

¶6     On June 12, 2006, defendant filed his first post-conviction petition pro se, alleging

prosecutors paid Moore to lie under oath; prosecutors coerced Griffin’s confession; police

misconduct; and the investigating ASA lied under oath and suborned false testimony from

witnesses; all of which amounted to a violation of defendant’s constitutional rights. Defendant

supplemented this petition twice, once in May 2008 and once in April 2009, introducing “newly

discovered evidence” to further support the original petition and a new claim of actual innocence.

Defendant alleged that in January 2009, he received new evidence that “indicate[d] extensive

                                                -2-
No. 1-21-0404

official and prosecutorial misconduct” that pertained to another murder, the murder of Robert

Ciralski. 1 In this supplement, defendant introduced a signed confession from Robert Langford

admitting to murdering Ciralski with an accomplice. Defendant argued this new evidence proved

his innocence. The State filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted as to all claims

except defendant’s claim regarding Darryl Moore, who had recanted his testimony shortly after

trial. After a third stage evidentiary hearing on that count, the court denied defendant post-

conviction relief and he appealed. This court affirmed the denial and granted counsel’s Finley

motion to withdraw. People v. Allen, 2015 IL App (1st) 132145-U.

¶7      In September 2016, defendant filed a pro se motion for leave to file a successive post-

conviction petition, alleging his conviction was attained through constitutional violations, he is

actually innocent, and he had ineffective assistance of counsel. In support, defendant submitted

new affidavits from Langford that repeated Langford’s confession to murdering Ciralski, but were

now notarized, and another affidavit from an inmate who asserted that Langford admitted to killing

Ciralski and that defendant was falsely convicted. The trial court denied leave, but we reversed

and remanded because the trial judge had been previously disqualified during defendant’s post-

conviction proceedings in the Ciralski case. People v. Allen, No. 1-17-0901 (Aug. 24, 2020).

¶8      On remand, defendant filed a supplement to his motion for leave, introducing another

affidavit from Langford, in which Langford identified his accomplice in the Ciralski murder as a

man nicknamed “Kirby”—whose real name was also James Allen. 2 Defendant argued that the State

prejudiced him when it introduced trial testimony that “Mr. Allen” was a suspect in the Ciralski

murder, concealed exculpatory evidence, and that he is actually innocent. The court rejected

        1
            In August 1984, several weeks after the Gibson murder but before defendant was arrested, Robert Ciralski,
also known as “Doc,” was killed. Defendant was convicted of that murder, and we affirmed on appeal. People v. Allen,
221 Ill. App. 3d 737 (1991).
          2
            For the sake of clarity, we refer to Langford’s accomplice as “Kirby” throughout this opinion.

                                                       -3-
No. 1-21-0404

defendant’s claims and denied defendant’s motion for leave to file the successive post-conviction

petition. This timely appeal followed. Ill. S. Ct. R. 606, 651(a) (eff. July 1, 2017).

¶9                                           ANALYSIS

¶ 10   The Post-Conviction Hearing Act provides a statutory remedy to criminal defendants who

assert claims for substantial violations of their constitutional rights at trial. 725 ILCS 5/122-1 et

seq. (West 2020). Section 122-3 of the Act provides that any claim of a substantial denial of

constitutional rights not raised in the original or an amended petition is waived. 725 ILCS 5/122-3.

A ruling on either direct appeal or an initial post-conviction petition has res judicata effect with

respect to all claims that were raised, or could have been raised, in either proceeding. Id.; People

v. Blair, 215 Ill. 2d 427, 443 (2005). The statutory bar to raising a claim in a successive post-

conviction petition that was not raised in the original or amended petition is only relaxed where

fundamental fairness so requires. People v. Daniel, 379 Ill. App. 3d 748, 750 (2008). In determining

whether fundamental fairness requires relaxation of the statutory bar, reviewing courts use the

“cause-and-prejudice” test. 725 ILCS 5/122–1(f) (West 2020); People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d

444, 459 (2002).

¶ 11   The Act provides for only one post-conviction petition, and therefore a petitioner must

obtain leave of court before filing a successive petition. 725 ILCS 5/122–1(f); People v. Robinson,

2020 IL 123849, ¶ 43. For leave to be granted, petitioner must either establish cause and prejudice

for the failure to assert a postconviction claim in an earlier proceeding or set forth a “colorable

claim of actual innocence.” People v. Edwards, 2012 IL 111711, ¶¶ 22, 25-29. A claim of actual

innocence applies a higher standard than is applicable to an initial petition at the filing stage. Id.

Applying this higher standard comports with the legislative intent of the Act, Illinois Supreme

                                                 -4-
No. 1-21-0404

Court jurisprudence, and is congruent with analogous federal standards. Id. ¶ 28. We review the

denial of leave to file a successive post-conviction petition de novo. Id. ¶ 30.

¶ 12                                          A. Actual Innocence

¶ 13    Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for leave to file a

successive post-conviction petition because he raised a colorable claim of actual innocence. In

support, defendant presents the affidavits of Robert Langford, in which he confesses to the murder

of Robert Ciralski, as evidence that police were informed of Langford’s involvement in the Ciralski

murder prior to defendant’s trial and that the State suborned perjury and withheld evidence as a

result. Defendant also presents the affidavit of Namore Smith, 3 who avers, essentially, that

Langford’s affidavit is accurate. The State contends that introduction of Langford’s confession is

barred by res judicata because it was raised in defendant’s initial post-conviction petition, and

alternatively, that defendant cannot satisfy the test for actual innocence. The trial court found that

because these affidavits concern a different murder, they are irrelevant to defendant’s claim of

actual innocence in this case.

¶ 14    As an initial matter, the State contends that defendant may not assert his “free standing”

claim of actual innocence because it is predicated on the same evidence defendant also uses to

support his claims of constitutional violations. The State argues that because Langford’s affidavit

confessing that he and Kirby committed the Ciralski murder is used to support both defendant’s

actual innocence claim and constitutional claims, the actual innocence claim is not “free standing”

as required under People v. Hobley. 182 Ill. 2d 404 (1998).

¶ 15    A claim of actual innocence is free standing when “the newly discovered evidence being

relied upon ‘is not being used to supplement an assertion of a constitutional violation with respect

        3
          Smith’s affidavit only attests to the veracity of Langford’s confession to the Ciralski murder and provides
no new information relevant to this case. Any reference to Langford’s affidavits incorporates Smith’s.

                                                       -5-
No. 1-21-0404

to [the] trial.’” Id. at 443-44 (citing People v. Washington, 171 Ill. 2d 475, 479 (1996)). While there

has been general adherence to this rule, some cases have questioned the reasoning and policy of

the Hobley rule. See People v. Coleman, 2013 IL 113307, ¶ 83 (“[A] free standing actual-innocence

claim is independent of any claims of constitutional error at trial and focuses solely on a

defendant’s factual innocence in light of new evidence.”) (internal quotations omitted); People v.

Martinez, 2021 IL App (1st) 190490, ¶ 106 (“We find that Hobley’s fifth requirement for raising

an actual innocence claim cannot be reconciled with our supreme court’s more recent

postconviction jurisprudence.”). Others have examined the petitioner’s claims despite the rule. See

People v. Wideman, 2016 IL App (1st) 123092, ¶¶ 63-75 (court addressing both defendant’s actual

innocence claim and constitutional claim relying on same evidence); People v. Calhoun, 2016 IL

App (1st) 141021, ¶¶ 28-36 (same). Whether his actual innocence claim is free standing or not,

defendant has not presented sufficient evidence to satisfy the standard.

¶ 16   To set forth a colorable claim of actual innocence, a petitioner must support their successive

petition with supporting documentation that makes it more likely than not that no reasonable juror

would have convicted him in light of the new evidence. Robinson, 2020 IL 123849, ¶ 44; People

v. Sanders, 2016 IL 118123, ¶ 24. This new evidence in support of petitioner’s claim must be newly

discovered, material and noncumulative, and be of “such conclusive character that it would

probably change the result on retrial.” Robinson, 2020 IL 123849, ¶ 47; Edwards, 2012 IL 111711,

¶ 32. Evidence is considered newly discovered if it was not available at trial and could not have

been discovered by petitioner earlier through an exercise of due diligence. Robinson, 2020 IL

123849, ¶ 47; Coleman, 2013 IL 113307, ¶ 96. Material evidence is relevant and probative of the

petitioner’s innocence, and such evidence is non-cumulative if it adds, not just repeats, the

information the fact finder heard at trial. Coleman, 2013 IL 113307, ¶ 96. Finally, the conclusive

                                                 -6-
No. 1-21-0404

character element is the most important element of the actual innocence claim and refers to

evidence that “when considered along with the trial evidence, would probably lead to a different

result.” Id. ¶ 96.

¶ 17    Langford’s affidavits are not newly discovered evidence for the reasons discussed below,

and Langford’s confession to an entirely different murder is not material or probative of

defendant’s innocence for this crime. Langford’s averment that his accomplice Kirby told police

of Langford’s involvement in the Ciralski murder before defendant’s arrest is likewise not

probative of defendant’s innocence in the Gibson murder. Defendant’s arguments to the contrary

are based on conclusory allegations, and he presents no evidence to link Langford’s affidavits with

his actual innocence. As a result, defendant has failed to show that this evidence is of such

conclusive character that it “would probably lead to a different result” at trial. Id.

¶ 18                                 B. Constitutional Violations

¶ 19    Defendant next argues that he established cause and prejudice because the State committed

perjury during the proceedings where it elicited false testimony that defendant was a suspect in the

Ciralski murder and committed a Brady violation when it failed to disclose material exculpatory

evidence. The State first responds that defendant’s claims are again barred by res judicata, because

he raised or could have raised similar claims in his initial petition. In the alternative, the State

argues that defendant forfeited these claims because the information was discoverable when he

litigated his initial post-conviction petition and defendant’s assertions are unsupported by

evidence.

¶ 20    A court will grant leave to file a successive post-conviction petition when the defendant

establishes cause and prejudice for failing to raise the claim in his original petition. People v.

Simpson, 204 Ill. 2d 536, 552 (2001). To show cause, the defendant must identify an objective

                                                 -7-
No. 1-21-0404

factor that impeded his ability to raise a specific claim during his initial post-conviction

proceedings. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f); People v. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶ 14. To show prejudice, the

defendant must demonstrate that the claim not previously raised in his initial post-conviction

proceedings “so infected the trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violated due process.”

725 ILCS 5/122-1(f); Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶ 14.

¶ 21   As to both his perjury and Brady claims, defendant contends that he has established cause

because Langford’s affidavits were written well after trial and he had no reason to investigate

Langford “as the true perpetrator of the Ciralski murder” prior to 2009. “[T]he mere fact that these

affidavits are dated after the time of trial does not render the evidence newly discovered.” People

v. Harris, 206 Ill. 2d 293, 301 (2002). Whenever written, defendant is required to demonstrate an

objective factor which impeded his ability to bring the claim at the original trial or in his initial

petition. People v. Nichols, 2021 IL App (2d) 190659, ¶ 19.

¶ 22   Defendant presents multiple statements by Robert Langford: one unnotarized confession

from 2009 and three notarized affidavits from 2010, 2016, and 2018. We find that defendant could

have discovered the evidence in Langford’s affidavits well before he filed his initial post-

conviction petition. In his motion for leave to file his successive petition in September 2016,

defendant stated that after being arrested in connection with the Gibson murder, the investigating

ASA asked him if he had heard the name “Robert Langford or Lawford” in connection with the

Ciralski murder. Defendant stated that he knew Ciralski operated a drug store in his old

neighborhood and had heard from neighbors that Langford had killed Ciralski but that defendant

did not personally know who Langford was. After defendant exchanged this information with the

ASA, a detective confirmed that Langford was a suspect in the Ciralski murder.

                                                -8-
No. 1-21-0404

¶ 23   Subsequently, in defendant’s supplement to his motion for leave, filed in November 2020,

defendant stated that he learned Langford was a suspect in the Ciralski murder prior to his arrest

in August 1984 when visiting his associate Lance Bell, who lived across the street from Ciralski’s

drug store. The record indicates defendant later solicited Bell to testify as an alibi witness, and

both the prosecution and defense listed Bell as a potential witness, though he was never called at

trial. Defendant further stated that “police were combing the neighborhood asking neighbors if

they knew a Robert Langford” in connection with the Ciralski murder. Defendant goes as far to

say that it was widely known that Langford was a suspect and even states that he was personally

approached by police and asked if he knew a Robert Langford.

¶ 24   These facts directly contradict defendant’s contention that he “knew nothing about the

Ciralski murder” or that “even with the highest level of diligence,” defendant “would not have

been able to discover this other James Allen or Langford’s involvement in the Ciralski case.”

Soliciting a murder confession from a man who had not yet, and would never be, convicted of the

crime would likely be impossible without his cooperation. After all, no amount of due diligence

can force a witness to violate their fifth amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. U.S. Const.,

amend. V; People v. Molstad, 101 Ill. 2d 128, 135 (1984). However, in addition to Langford’s

confession, defendant also relies upon Langford’s assertion that Kirby spoke to the police, naming

Langford as Ciralski’s murderer before defendant’s trial for the Gibson murder. This became

Langford’s motive to murder Kirby, a crime for which he was convicted and sentenced to life

without the possibility of parole in 1987, a conviction which this court upheld. People v. Langford,

234 Ill. App. 3d 855 (1992). Since then, Langford’s location has been a matter of public record.

¶ 25   When confronted with situations where potentially exculpatory witnesses were available

and the defense undertook no effort to contact, locate, or subpoena such individuals, our supreme

                                               -9-
No. 1-21-0404

court has placed that burden on the defense. See Coleman, 2013 IL 113307 (holding that the

testimony of two witnesses were not newly discovered where the witnesses were arrested in

connection with the underlying offense and defendant discussed one witness with defense counsel

prior to trial.); Edwards, 2012 IL 111711 (concluding that even though witnesses likely would not

have been persuaded to testify, defense made no attempt to subpoena them and gave no explanation

for the failure to expend efforts to satisfy due diligence).

¶ 26    Defendant argues that because he did not receive the notarized 2010 affidavit until his

initial petition had reached the third stage, and because his public defender had this affidavit and

did not present it to the court, the “cause” element is satisfied. Defendant’s claims supported by

Langford’s affidavit had been dismissed at the second stage. To the extent that defendant claims

his public defender’s failure to present the affidavit is sufficient to satisfy the “cause” element,

ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel is not a basis for relief under the Act. People v.

Flores, 153 Ill. 2d 264, 276 (1992). Further, cause is specifically defined as an “objective factor

external to the defense” which impeded defendant’s ability to raise a claim in an earlier proceeding.

(Emphasis added.) Id. at 279; see also Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986); Pitsonbarger,

205 Ill. 2d at 462.

¶ 27    Defendant has presented no evidence, and we can find none in the record, to suggest any

attempt was made to locate or communicate with Robert Langford between 1984 and 2009.

Because no efforts were ever made by defendant, and he has not presented an objective factor that

prevented him or his counsel from investigating Langford, we find defendant has not adequately

alleged facts demonstrating “cause.” See People v. Smith, 2014 IL 115946, ¶ 34.

¶ 28    Defendant has also failed to establish prejudice. Defendant argues that the jury was

prejudiced by the investigating ASA’s testimony as it related to the Ciralski case. Defendant details

                                                 - 10 -
No. 1-21-0404

numerous additional “facts” supported by Langford’s affidavits that allegedly prove the

investigating ASA’s testimony was false, but all amount to conclusory assertions, and none are

supported by either the affidavits or the record. Moreover, defendant’s arguments on this point are

inseparably interwoven with allegations raised and dismissed in his initial petition and, for that

reason, are waived.

¶ 29    Defendant also argues that the jury was prejudiced by the ASA’s testimony that defendant

was a suspect in the Ciralski murder. Defendant relies on the 2016 averment that Kirby told the

police that Langford killed Ciralski before defendant’s trial, and therefore the investigating ASA’s

testimony was knowingly false. Langford’s 2016 affidavit does not provide a date for when Kirby

made this revelation, and that this allegation is not repeated in Langford’s prior or subsequent

affidavits. 4 Defendant points to nothing in the record or any other supporting document to provide

confirmation of the sequence of events, without which defendant’s claim that police knew about

Kirby’s culpability in the Ciralski murder before defendant’s trial are impossible to verify. As the

trial court noted below, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to substantiate his allegations with

specific facts establishing the falsity of the trial testimony. People v. Martin, 46 Ill. 2d 565, 568

(1970). Defendant has not done so. The evidence presented does not show prejudice that worked

to defendant’s substantial disadvantage or infected his trial with an “error of constitutional

dimensions.” People v. Hudson, 195 Ill. 2d 117 (2001) (quoting Murray, 477 U.S. at 494). To the

extent that defendant’s perjury claims are not barred by res judicata, we find that they have failed

to meet the requirements of the cause-and prejudice test. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f).

         4
           Langford’s 2016 affidavit says that “before Allen was arrested for Robert Ciralski [sic] murder my
accomplice in the Robert Ciralski murder was Mr. Kirby, he’d told westside detectives that on the evening of August
1, 1984 hours prior to the robbery and murder of Robert Ciralski, I robbed and shot a man twice on California and
Monroe with the same gun I used to rob and murder Robert Ciralski.” Defendant was never “arrested” for the Ciralski
murder as he was already serving his sentence for the Gibson murder when he was indicted. This statement therefore
provides no clarity as to when Kirby spoke with police.

                                                      - 11 -
No. 1-21-0404

¶ 30   Considering defendant’s Brady claim, defendant claims he was prejudiced when the State

withheld that Kirby was a suspect in the Ciralski murder, because evidence of another James Allen

would have undermined the credibility of defendant’s statement to the police. To succeed on a

Brady claim, a defendant must show that (1) undisclosed evidence is favorable to him because it

is either exculpatory or impeaching; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the state either willfully

or inadvertently; and (3) the accused was prejudiced because the evidence is material to guilt or

punishment. People v. Beaman, 229 Ill. 2d 56, 73-74 (2008).

¶ 31   We need not examine the elements of a Brady claim, however, because defendant has not

pleaded specific facts or supplied supporting documentation confirming the existence of

“undisclosed evidence.” As noted above, Langford’s affidavits fail to establish when Kirby spoke

with police. Defendant provides no evidence that this occurred before defendant’s trial. In a motion

to file a successive post-conviction petition, only well-pleaded facts in the petition and supporting

affidavits are to be taken as true. Wideman, 2016 IL App (1st) 123092, ¶ 59 (citing Pitsonbarger,

205 Ill. 2d at 467). Defendant’s argument hinges upon the occurrence of a specific event at a

specific time, yet none of the evidence in his petition or in the record provides that specific time.

Defendant’s Brady claim must necessarily fail because defendant has not shown there was even

evidence for the State to suppress. Because defendant has not met the prejudice prong of the cause-

and-prejudice test as to his Brady claim, such a claim cannot support a successive post-conviction

petition under the Act. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f).

¶ 32   For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court properly denied defendant’s

motion for leave to file his successive post-conviction petition.

¶ 33   Affirmed.

                                               - 12 -