Court Opinion

ID: 9516758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:51:25.593126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:08.058190
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GARMAN, concurring in part and dissenting in part: The central question in this case is the standard a court should employ in determining whether a petition for postconviction relief is frivolous or patently without merit. I agree with the majority in its analysis of this standard and in its application as to defendant’s self-defense claim. I write separately to express my disagreement with the majority’s analysis of defendant’s second degree murder claim. Simply stated, I do not believe, under the facts of this case, that defendant is entitled to any relief and the trial court’s dismissal of his postconviction petition should be affirmed. The majority properly concludes, as did the appellate court below, that defendant’s self-defense claim is completely contradicted by the record because defendant was the aggressor. 234 Ill. 2d at 20-21. However, the majority fails to consider how defendant’s aggression likewise affects his attempt to mitigate the offense to second degree murder. I believe this is an error because even if we take defendant at his word and draw all inferences in his favor, he cannot avail himself of the only section of the statute relevant to his second degree murder defense. In order to mitigate the offense of first degree murder to second degree murder on the basis of an actual but unreasonable belief that self-defense was required, a defendant must prove the elements of section 9 — 2(a)(2) of the Criminal Code (720 ILCS 5/9 — 2(a)(2) (West 2006)). Section 9 — 2(a)(2) provides, in relevant part, that “(a) A person commits the offense of second degree murder when he commits the offense of first degree murder *** and *** (2) [a]t the time of the killing he believes the circumstances to be such that, if they existed, would justify or exonerate the killing under the principles stated in Article 7 of this Code, but his belief is unreasonable.” 720 ILCS 5/9 — 2(a)(2) (West 2006). This is often referred to as “imperfect self-defense.” See People v. Davis, 213 Ill. 2d 459, 492 (2004). The critical language in this passage is that the defendant must believe circumstances exist that would justify the use of force under article 7. Thus, the question here is not, as the majority states, whether “defendant believed, albeit unreasonably, that his actions were justifiable.” 234 Ill. 2d at 21. Instead, the question is whether the facts, as defendant believed them to be at the time, would, under article 7, justify or exonerate the killing if they were true. The record contains no facts that would “justify or exonerate the killing under the principles stated in Article 7.” 720 ILCS 5/9 — 2(a)(2) (West 2006). Article 7 identifies a number of limited circumstances under which a person is entitled to use force, even deadly force. 720 ILCS 5/7 — 1 et seq. (West 2006). These include the right to use deadly force where a person “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.” 720 ILCS 5/7 — 1(a) (West 2006). This section is, apparently, the section of code that the majority relies on in finding that defendant’s petition presents an arguable basis for his imperfect self-defense claim. However, section 7 — 1 is not applicable to defendant because defendant was the aggressor. Instead, defendant may rely only on section 7 — 4, “Use of Force by Aggressor,” to attempt to exonerate his actions. 720 ILCS 5/7 — 4 (West 2006). Section 7 — 4 provides in relevant part that the justification for using force “described in the preceding Sections of this Article is not available to a person who: * * * (c) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself, unless: (1) Such force is so great that he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or (2) In good faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.” 720 ILCS 5/7 — 4 (West 2006). In the present case, it is undeniable that defendant provoked whatever force he believes was used against him. Therefore, the only relevant question is whether one of the two statutory exceptions applies, such that defendant is entitled to claim this defense. Under section 7 — 4, defendant, as the aggressor, must prove that he believed either that (1) the force he was threatened with was “so great” that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that he “exhausted every reasonable means to escape *** other than the use of force”; or (2) he withdrew “from physical contact with [Pitts]” and clearly indicated to Pitts that he desired to withdraw and terminate “the use of force,” but Pitts “continue[d] or resume[d] the use of force.” (Emphasis added.) 720 ILCS 5/7 — 4 (West 2006). Defendant cannot establish either of these two exceptions. Defendant’s own testimony and statements completely contradict his second degree murder claim.9  Defendant testified that the dispute began when his nephew, Durrell Jackson (Toniac), got into an argument with the deceased, Christopher Pitts, and threw a beer bottle at Pitts.10 Defendant further testified that after Toniac threw the bottle, two of Pitts’s friends exited the van they and Pitts had arrived in and began approaching Toniac. Defendant then pulled his nine-millimeter semiautomatic handgun from the pocket of his coat and fired two rounds over the heads of Toniac, Pitts, and Pitts’s two friends. Defendant explained that he fired the two shots as a warning to insure that there was a fair fight between Toniac and Pitts. At the time defendant discharged his weapon, no other guns had been drawn, no other rounds had been fired, no weapons of any kind had been displayed, and no verbal threats had been made. The only act of violence prior to defendant discharging his weapon was Toniac throwing his beer bottle at Pitts. Defendant testified that after he fired the rounds, everyone ran, as “the shot must have kind of scared everybody.” Defendant then left the area next to the vehicle, where he had been standing when he fired the shots, and went to “check up on Toniac.” Toniac had likewise left the area in front of the cashier’s window on the west side of the station and had pursued Pitts east along the north side of the gas station. Defendant stated that when he and Toniac reached the northeast corner of the gas station, they stopped. It was at this point that, defendant claims, he heard someone else shooting and heard a bullet come past him. However, instead of ducking down, finding shelter, or running for cover, defendant turned the northeast corner of the building and began chasing Pitts south along the back (east side) of the gas station. At trial, defendant testified that he and Toniac were standing together on the northeast corner of the gas station when the other shots were fired.11 Defendant further testified that only after these other shots were fired did Toniac pull his gun out, and that the two of them turned the corner together. Defendant stated that Toniac fired only one round toward Pitts and that this round was fired at the northeast corner of the building. Defendant stated that Toniac did not fire any other rounds and that Toniac broke off his pursuit in the middle of the east side of the building. Defendant, however, admits that he continued to pursue Pitts. In defendant’s videotaped statement, he told police that he “fired four or five rounds” at Pitts while chasing him. At trial, defendant initially testified that he fired only two rounds and that these rounds were not fired at Pitts but merely “in his direction.” However, during cross-examination defendant admitted to having fired four or five rounds at Pitts while chasing him. Defendant testified that he fired on Pitts because: “I thought he was shooting at me. He was the only one in front of me.” Defendant did, however, admit that he never saw Pitts with a weapon, let alone see Pitts fire a weapon at him or Toniac. Defendant testified that he continued to chase Pitts southwest from the rear of the building toward the intersection of Cicero and Augusta. He stopped his chase when he was standing in the intersection of Cicero and Augusta and realized he was out of ammunition.12 Defendant admitted to seeing Pitts fall on Cicero. Defendant further testified that he assumed Pitts fell because he had been shot, but denied seeing Pitts fall as a result of a shot he fired. Defendant stated that after he saw Pitts fall, he turned back toward the gas station and tried to go back to his car, but by that time, Toniac had already left the gas station and was being pursued by a squad car. Defendant said that he then made his way back home, disposing of pieces of his gun at various points along his path. In his postconviction petition, defendant alleges that his attorney was ineffective for failing to investigate and present the testimony of three witnesses who would have testified that Pitts had a gun the night he was killed. None of these witnesses would testify to seeing Pitts brandish the weapon or otherwise use the gun he supposedly had. However, even assuming, arguendo, that these witnesses could establish not only that Pitts had a gun, but that Pitts actually fired at defendant during the course of his flight, this would be insufficient to entitle defendant to further proceedings because the legal theory of second degree murder is completely contradicted by the record. Therefore, where defendant’s own statements preclude the very defense he claims counsel was ineffective for not pursuing, there is no prejudice. In this case, defendant cannot establish the first exception to section 7 — 4, because even if the facts were as he believed them to be, he took no measures to escape. In fact, defendant pressed the engagement at every opportunity. Once he dispersed the crowd, by firing his weapon, he joined Toniac and chased after Pitts. When he and Toniac stopped at the northeast corner of the gas station, he did not stop or withdraw, but turned the corner and continued the engagement. When Toniac ceased his pursuit of Pitts, defendant continued the chase. Though Pitts was in open flight, defendant continued to fire at the fleeing man’s back until he was out of ammunition. Likewise, defendant cannot establish the second exception in section 7 — 4, because even if the facts were as he believed them to be, he never gave any indication that he desired to terminate the use of force. As noted above, defendant pressed the use of force at every opportunity. In sum, even if the facts were as defendant believed them to be, his use of force would not be exonerated or justifiable under the conditions provided in article 7. Therefore, defendant’s second degree murder theory is completely contradicted by the record, and even if counsel’s performance was deficient, defendant could not have been prejudiced by this deficiency. In reaching this conclusion, I recognize that the trial court allowed defendant to present the imperfect self-defense instruction to the jury, over the State’s objection. However, the trial court’s decision to err on the side of caution does not mean that a reviewing court is required to entertain a frivolous postconviction claim simply because the defendant received a jury instruction on that basis. I also note that because the majority held that the preceding issue was sufficient to warrant reversal of the trial court’s dismissal, it did not reach defendant’s argument that there were more shell casings recovered from the scene than were presented at trial. For the reasons stated above, I also find this argument frivolous. As noted, even if other people were shooting, that does not change the fact that defendant instigated this violence and chased and shot at a man as he ran away, killing him. The majority takes issue with this partial dissent on the basis that it goes beyond the level of detail that a pro se defendant would be required to assert in a first stage petition, and is more appropriately addressed at the second stage of postconviction review. 234 Ill. 2d at 22. I dissent, not because of the sufficiency of defendant’s petition, but because when defendant’s claims are compared to the factual record, it is clear that his allegations are indisputably meritless. At the first stage of a postconviction petition, a court must, within 90 days of petition’s filing, examine the petition and determine whether the claim is frivolous. 234 Ill. 2d at 10 (citing People v. Edwards, 197 Ill. 2d 239, 244 (2001), and 725 ILCS 5/122 — 2.1(a)(2) (West 2006)). This review necessarily requires the court to examine the petition in conjunction with the record. This is particularly true where the court finds that the factual allegations are not fanciful and therefore must consider whether the legal claim is “completely contradicted by the record.” (Emphasis added.) 234 Ill. 2d at 16. To properly perform this analysis, the court should first examine the law which governs the defendant’s claimed error and then compare the applicable law regarding that claim to the factual record of the case. See, e.g., People v. Robinson, 217 Ill. 2d 43 (2005) (finding that the record was adequate to affirm the summary dismissal of the defendant’s postconviction petition at the first stage); People v. Edwards, 197 Ill. 2d 239 (2001) (finding that the record was insufficient to allow dismissal at the first stage). The majority structures its analysis of defendant’s self-defense claim on this model and it is the same structure I employ in this dissent. Second stage review should be reserved for those cases that have arguable merit. Where, as here, the record allows a court to dispose of a frivolous motion without further involvement of the court or the allocation of additional state resources, the court should do so. In this case, defendant’s entire argument, both with regard to self-defense and with regard to second degree murder, is refuted by the record. Therefore, I respectfully dissent in part and concur in part from the majority opinion and would hold that the trial court properly dismissed defendant’s petition as frivolous. JUSTICES THOMAS and KARMEIER join in this partial concurrence and partial dissent.  Because the relevant inquiry is whether defendant believed, albeit unreasonably, that circumstances existed that would have exonerated or justified the use of force under statute, I have focused exclusively on defendant’s own statements of what he believed the facts to be.   At trial, defendant recanted his videotaped statement that Toniac “tried to hit [Pitts]” with the bottle and instead testified that Toniac merely “threw it at the direction of the victim” not “at him.” This is a distinction without a difference.   This statement contradicts defendant’s videotaped statement where he stated that as he turned the northeast corner he saw Toniac chasing Pitts with his gun drawn and saw him fire two rounds over Pitts’s head.   Defendant denies pursuing Pitts to the point Pitts was killed, one-quarter block south of Augusta on Cicero. However, evidence produced at trial showed that defendant was the only person firing nine-millimeter rounds on the night in question. Moreover, there were seven nine-millimeter casings found in the immediate proximity of Pitts’s body. Expert testimony for the State established that all the nine-millimeter casings recovered, both at the gas station, where defendant admits he was firing rounds, and those found next to the body, were fired from the same gun. Forensics was unable to link the casings to defendant’s actual weapon, however, as defendant dismantled the weapon and threw pieces in various locations during the course of his flight from the scene.