Court Opinion

ID: 9364667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-19 21:03:26.942623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:39.709177
License: Public Domain

NOTICE                      2023 IL App (4th) 220454-U
                                                                                           FILED
This Order was filed under
                                             NO. 4-22-0454                              January 18, 2023
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is                                                              Carla Bender
not precedent except in the                                                           4th District Appellate
limited circumstances allowed       IN THE APPELLATE COURT
                                                                                            Court, IL
under Rule 23(e)(1).
                                             OF ILLINOIS

                                         FOURTH DISTRICT

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                       )   Appeal from the
              Plaintiff-Appellee,                              )   Circuit Court of
              v.                                               )   McLean County
    ANDRE WOODS,                                               )   No. 07CF661
              Defendant-Appellant.                             )
                                                               )   Honorable
                                                               )   John Casey Costigan,
                                                               )   Judge Presiding.

                    JUSTICE CAVANAGH delivered the judgment of the court.
                    Justices Turner and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.

                                                ORDER
   ¶1      Held: Because defendant failed to make the showing of cause and prejudice required by
                 section 122-1(f) of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West
                 2020)), the circuit court was correct to deny him permission to file a successive
                 petition for postconviction relief.

   ¶2               Defendant, Andre Woods, is serving sentences of imprisonment for armed robbery

   and other offenses. He moved for permission to file a successive petition for postconviction relief.

   The circuit court of McLean County denied the motion. Defendant appeals. The Office of the State

   Appellate Defender (appellate counsel) has moved for permission to withdraw from representing

   defendant in this appeal, because for reasons that appellate counsel explains in a supporting

   memorandum, he believes that any argument in support of this appeal would be frivolous. We

   notified defendant of his right to respond, by a certain date, to appellate counsel’s motion.

   Defendant has not done so. After reviewing the record, we agree with appellate counsel’s
assessment of the merits of this appeal. In our de novo review, we find that defendant has failed to

make the showing of cause and prejudice necessary to receive permission to file a successive

petition. Therefore, we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment.

¶3                                     I. BACKGROUND

¶4             In July 2007, the State charged defendant with (1) four counts of armed robbery, a

Class X felony (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(1), (b) (West 2006)); (2) four counts of aggravated robbery,

a Class 1 felony (720 ILCS 5/18-5(a), (b) (West 2006)); (3) one count of resisting a peace officer,

a Class 4 felony (720 ILCS 5/31-1(a-7) (West 2006)); (4) one count of obstruction of justice, a

Class 4 felony (720 ILCS 5/31-4(a), (d)(1) (West 2006)); and (5) one count of aggravated battery,

a Class 3 felony (720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(8), (e)(1) (West 2006)).

¶5             The jury trial took place in August 2008. The evidence in the trial was essentially

as follows. On June 23, 2007, Logan Fields, Brooke McBurney, Lisa Olson, Jennifer Keil, and

Brandy Johnson were walking together in Bloomington, Illinois, when two men approached them.

One of the men was brandishing a pistol, and the other man, defendant, was serving as a lookout.

The man with the pistol demanded that Fields hand over his wallet. When Fields hesitated, he hit

Fields in the face with the pistol. After Fields relinquished his wallet, the two men ordered his

companions to hand over their purses. Defendant assisted with collecting the purses. When Keil

protested the taking of her friends’ purses, the man with the pistol struck her on the head with the

pistol. Photographs admitted in evidence showed Keil’s facial wounds and stitches. Because Keil

fell on top of her purse, her purse was not taken. The two robbers fled with Fields’s wallet and the

other women’s purses.

¶6             The police arrived, and several witnesses described the lookout as wearing a brown

jumpsuit with a white stripe. A Bloomington police officer, William Buchanan, saw defendant

                                               -2-
four blocks east of the reported robbery. Defendant was walking very quickly and was wearing a

brown jumpsuit with a white stripe. Buchanan sped up to catch defendant, and defendant began

running. Buchanan lost sight of defendant, and when Buchanan regained sight of him, he was

being handcuffed by another Bloomington police officer, Justin Shively. Defendant physically

resisted Shively. After a scuffle, defendant was handcuffed. Buchanan asked defendant what his

name was. Defendant answered, falsely, that his name was Maurice Thomas.

¶7             Fields, McBurney, and two other eyewitnesses, Samantha and Allen Joyce,

accompanied the police to a nearby parking lot, where defendant was being held, and identified

defendant as one of the robbers. The man who wielded the pistol was never identified or

apprehended.

¶8             Bloomington Police Officer Scott Mathewson found a pistol in the area where the

police officers had chased defendant. The pistol turned out to be a BB gun, although it looked like

a real handgun and had a weight similar to that of a real handgun. Mathewson testified he found

no fingerprint evidence tying defendant to the gun and that although he had sent the pistol to be

tested for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence, he did not know the results of the test.

According to other testimony, the police found the stolen purses and the wallet near the route on

which police had chased defendant.

¶9             The jury found defendant guilty of all counts except counts IX and X, the

armed-robbery and aggravated-robbery counts naming Keil as the victim. Pursuant to the one-act,

one-crime doctrine (see People v. Rodriguez, 169 Ill. 2d 183, 186 (1996)), the circuit court vacated

counts II, VI, and VIII, the aggravated-robbery convictions.

¶ 10           The circuit court imposed concurrent 60-year extended prison terms on each of the

three   armed-robbery    convictions    and   two    6-year    extended   prison   terms   on   the

                                               -3-
obstruction-of-justice convictions. Also, the court imposed a 10-year extended prison term on the

aggravated-battery conviction, to run consecutively to the 60-year prison terms already imposed.

Thus, the sentences amounted to a total of 70 years’ imprisonment.

¶ 11            Defendant took a direct appeal. He made two arguments, both of them having to do

with the sentences. People v. Woods, No. 4-09-0134, slip order at 1-2 (Jan. 15, 2010) (unpublished

order under Rule 23). First, he argued that the 60-year extended prison terms on the convictions

of armed robbery reflected an underestimation of his rehabilitative potential. Id. Second, he argued

that the extended prison terms on the remaining convictions were legally impermissible. Id. The

appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the 60-year extended prison terms for the

armed-robbery offenses. Id. at 9-10. Because defendant had been convicted, however, of multiple

offenses of differing classes arising from a single course of conduct, the appellate court concluded

that extended-term sentencing was authorized only for the offense within the most serious class,

armed robbery. Id. at 10 (referencing People v. Peacock, 359 Ill. App. 3d 326, 337 (2005)).

Therefore, the appellate court remanded the case with directions that the circuit court vacate the

extended-term sentences other than those for armed robbery and that the court impose the

maximum nonextended sentences of five years for aggravated battery, three years for obstruction

of justice, and three years for resisting a peace officer. Id. at 10-11.

¶ 12            On February 18, 2011, defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief. This

initial petition raised four claims: (1) trial counsel and appellate counsel rendered ineffective

assistance by failing to argue that defendant was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,

(2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate DNA testing on the BB

gun, (3) the police and the prosecutor concealed the favorable DNA results, and (4) trial counsel

rendered ineffective assistance by advising defendant not to testify. The appointed postconviction

                                                  -4-
counsel moved to withdraw on the ground that he could think of no reasonable argument to make

in support of the petition. The circuit court granted the motion and dismissed the petition.

Defendant appealed, contending that postconviction counsel had failed to provide reasonable

assistance. Disagreeing with that contention, the appellate court affirmed the judgment. People v.

Woods, 2014 IL App (4th) 130191-U, ¶ 52.

¶ 13           On September 13, 2021, defendant moved for permission to file a successive

petition for postconviction relief. See 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2020). He proposed raising five

claims.

¶ 14           First, according to defendant, he possessed newly discovered evidence that the

prosecutor had “obstruct[ed] *** justice” and had “tamper[ed] with exculpatory evidence” by

halting, “without court order,” the DNA testing of the BB gun. Defendant submitted evidence

receipts indicating that (1) on June 27, 2007, the Bloomington police department delivered to the

forensic laboratory swabbing from the handle of the pistol and (2) on August 23, 2007, the

laboratory returned the swabbing to the police department. On August 12, 2008, in the jury trial,

Mathewson testified as follows on cross-examination by defense counsel:

                      “Q. Now, in addition to that, you apparently took a DNA swab from the

               handgun; correct?

                      A. Yes.

                      Q. And you sent that sample off to the Illinois State Police to have that

               analyzed; correct?

                      A. Yes, I did.

                      Q. And you have no idea what the result of that analysis is?

                      A. No, I do not.

                                              -5-
                       Q. So, at this point, you’re not able to provide or testify about any DNA

               evidence that ties [defendant] to this crime; is that fair to say?

                       A. Yes, that’s fair.”

¶ 15           Defendant’s second proposed claim was that the prosecutor had “intentionally used

false testimony by Det[ective] Mathewson”—namely, the testimony quoted above (although this

was testimony elicited by defense counsel instead of by the prosecutor).

¶ 16           Third, defendant accused the prosecutor of lying to the jury by asserting, in his

closing argument, that Keil had received stitches. In support of his claim that this assertion by the

prosecutor was false, defendant relies on an incident summary report of June 23, 2007, in which

Bloomington Police Officer Richard Beoletto wrote, “Bloomington Rescue provided [Keil] with

a cloth and an ice pack to place on her cheek. I was advised that [Keil] had several small scrapes

on her cheek as a result of being struck.”

¶ 17           Fourth, defendant claimed that defense counsel had rendered ineffective assistance

by “fail[ing] to investigate exculpatory lab evidence” “seen in [the evidence receipts].”

¶ 18           Fifth, defendant claimed that counsel on direct appeal rendered ineffective

assistance by failing to raise these claims that defendant proposed raising in a successive petition.

¶ 19           On November 23, 2021, the circuit court denied the motion to file a successive

petition for postconviction relief. Because the motion did not specifically raise either a

cause-and-prejudice theory (see 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2020)) or an actual-innocence theory

(see People v. Edwards, 2012 IL 111711, ¶ 23), the court evaluated the motion under both theories.

The court found the motion to be unmeritorious under both theories. Because defendant did in fact

raise the DNA issue in his initial postconviction petition, he could not “demonstrate[ ] cause for

his *** failure to bring the claim in his *** initial post-conviction proceedings.” 725 ILCS

                                                -6-
5/122-1(f) (West 2020). Also, the court pointed out, even if defendant’s DNA were not on the BB

pistol, that fact would have no tendency to exonerate defendant, considering that he was charged

on a theory of accountability. See 720 ILCS 5/5-2(c) (West 2006). The evidence of guilt remained,

in the court’s assessment, overwhelming. Therefore, the court denied permission to file the

proposed successive petition.

¶ 20           This appeal followed.

¶ 21                                       II. ANALYSIS

¶ 22           In our de novo review (see People v. Robinson, 2020 IL 123849, ¶ 39), we agree

with appellate counsel that this appeal is clearly devoid of merit. The DNA issue is unavailing for

two reasons. First, defendant raised the DNA issue in his initial postconviction proceeding. In fact,

the evidence receipts were exhibits to his initial postconviction petition. Thus, as appellate counsel

correctly recognizes, the DNA issue is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See People v.

Conway, 2019 IL App (2d) 170196, ¶ 25 (reasoning that “[t]here can be no cause for failing to

raise a claim in the initial proceeding when the claim was, in fact, raised”); People v. Ames, 2019

IL App (4th) 170569, ¶ 24 (holding that claims that have been raised previously cannot be raised

in a successive petition).

¶ 23           Second, whether defendant personally handled the BB pistol is legally unimportant.

As the circuit court instructed the jury, one of the elements the State had to prove to sustain the

charge of armed robbery was that “the defendant or one for whose conduct he is legally responsible

[knowingly took property from a person] *** by the use of force or by threatening the imminent

use of force.” (Emphasis added.) The court further instructed the jury that “[a] person is legally

responsible for the conduct of another person when, *** during the commission of an offense, and

with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of an offense, he knowingly *** aids ***

                                                -7-
or attempts to aid the other person in the *** commission of an offense.” Defendant aided the

person with the pistol in his commission of armed robbery by serving as a lookout and by collecting

purses. In so doing, defendant effectively stepped into the shoes of the person with the gun.

Regardless of whether defendant personally handled the pistol, the law regards him and the wielder

of the pistol as equally guilty and makes no distinction between the two. See People v. Brown, 267

Ill. App. 3d 482, 487 (1994) (holding that “[a] defendant *** convicted on an accountability theory

shares equal guilt with the principal perpetrator of the crime”). Therefore, it would have been

frivolous of counsel on direct appeal to assert that defendant was innocent simply because his

DNA was not found on the pistol. It is not ineffective assistance to refrain from making frivolous

arguments. See People v. Childress, 191 Ill. 2d 168, 175 (2000).

¶ 24           Our discussion thus far effectively disposes of all the proposed claims except for

the proposed claim that the prosecutor lied by telling the jury that Keil had stitches. Defendant has

not shown cause for failing to raise this claim in the initial postconviction proceeding. See 725

ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2020). Nor has he shown prejudice. That is to say, he has not

“demonstrate[ed] that the claim not raised during his *** initial post-conviction proceedings so

infected the trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violated due process.” Id. He has not

even demonstrated that the prosecutor’s assertion was false. As defense counsel points out, the

record contains a photograph of Keil’s face, and in the photograph, she appears to have stitches.

¶ 25                                    III. CONCLUSION

¶ 26           For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

¶ 27           Affirmed.

                                                -8-