People v. Ames
161 N.E.3d 225
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- In 2001 Ames was convicted by jury of home invasion, aggravated battery, and aggravated criminal sexual assault and received consecutive prison terms. Appeals and initial postconviction efforts were denied through 2008.
- Ames filed a first motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition in 2012–2013; the trial court denied it and this court affirmed.
- In April 2016 Ames filed a second motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition; the State filed a written response and argued at hearings on the motion and on Ames’s motion to reconsider.
- The circuit court denied Ames’s second motion (Dec. 2016) for failure to show cause and lack of supporting affidavit; the court also denied reconsideration (July 2017).
- Ames appealed, arguing the circuit court erred by permitting State participation in the preliminary screening required for leave to file a successive postconviction petition.
- The appellate court reviewed the issue de novo, considered appellate precedent and competing remedies (remand vs. direct review), and affirmed the denial on the merits, holding Ames failed to make the cause-and-prejudice showing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State may participate in the circuit court’s preliminary screening of a motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition | State: its participation was proper (or at least harmless/minimal) and the denial should be upheld | Ames: Bailey forbids State participation in the preliminary screening and the court erred by allowing it | Court: State participation was improper under Bailey, but on these facts appellate review on the merits was appropriate for judicial economy; nevertheless Ames failed to show cause and prejudice and the denial was affirmed |
| Appropriate remedy when State participates in preliminary screening (remand vs. appellate review on merits) | State: appellate court may affirm without remand; judicial economy supports direct review | Ames: error requires remand for independent circuit-court screening free of State input | Court: appellate courts may, depending on complexity and judicial-economy considerations, review the motion themselves instead of remanding; here direct review was appropriate |
| Whether Ames made the required cause showing for leave to file a successive petition | State: Ames’s claimed bases (perjury, DNA testing, counsel preventing testimony) were known earlier and not excused; Montgomery/Miller inapplicable | Ames: new legal developments (cited Montgomery) and evidentiary issues justify cause | Court: Montgomery/Miller inapplicable (Ames wasn’t a juvenile/life-sentence case); claimed facts were in the earlier record; cause not shown |
| Whether Ames showed prejudice under section 122-1(f) (that unraised claim so infected trial as to violate due process) | State: no prejudice shown | Ames: cumulative trial errors and DNA issues prejudiced him | Court: because Ames failed on cause, no need to find prejudice; motion fails under the statutory cause-and-prejudice test |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gaultney, 174 Ill. 2d 410, 675 N.E.2d 102 (Ill. 1996) (supreme court precedent on State participation in postconviction proceedings)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (Miller rule made retroactive on collateral review)
- People v. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450 (Ill. 2017) (supreme court: State should not participate in preliminary screening for successive postconviction petitions; screening is for prima facie cause and prejudice)