People v. Ames
2019 IL App (4th) 170569
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background:
- In Nov. 2001 Ames was charged with home invasion, aggravated battery, and multiple counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault; a jury convicted him and he received consecutive terms.
- Ames’s direct appeal and initial postconviction petition were unsuccessful; his 2005–2008 postconviction claims (including ineffective assistance and DNA-testing requests) were dismissed and affirmed on appeal.
- He sought leave to file a successive postconviction petition in 2012–2013 and was denied; that denial was affirmed on appeal.
- Ames filed a second motion for leave to file a successive petition in Apr. 2016; the State filed a written response and argued at hearings; the circuit court denied leave in Dec. 2016 and denied a motion to reconsider in July 2017.
- On appeal Ames argued the circuit court erred by permitting State participation in the preliminary screening required under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act; the appellate court reviewed whether to remand or to decide on the merits and ultimately affirmed the denial because Ames failed to show cause.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was State participation in the preliminary screening improper? | State: its participation was de minimis and not reversible. | Ames: Bailey requires preliminary screening be conducted without State participation. | Court: State did participate improperly and its participation was not de minimis. |
| If improper, what remedy: remand for an independent screening or appellate review? | State: affirm the circuit court's denial. | Ames: remand so the trial court can re-evaluate without State input. | Court: appellate court may, for judicial economy, decide the merits itself in straightforward cases rather than remand. |
| Did Ames show cause and prejudice to obtain leave for a successive petition? | State: Ames failed to establish cause or prejudice; deny leave. | Ames: raised alleged perjury/record conflicts, requested DNA testing, cited Montgomery/Miller as cause for delay. | Court: Ames failed the cause prong; Montgomery/Miller inapplicable; leave denied. |
| Should the appeal be held in abeyance pending the Illinois Supreme Court’s Lusby decision? | State: oppose abeyance. | Ames: requested abeyance until Lusby resolved. | Court: refused to hold the case in abeyance. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bailey, 102 N.E.3d 114 (Ill. 2017) (preliminary screening for leave to file successive postconviction petition must occur without State participation)
- People v. Gaultney, 675 N.E.2d 102 (Ill. 1996) (procedural guidance on postconviction practice cited by Bailey)
- People v. Guerrero, 963 N.E.2d 909 (Ill. 2012) (cause-and-prejudice test requirement for successive petitions)
- People v. Munson, 102 N.E.3d 831 (Ill. App. 3d 2018) (held appellate court must remand when State taints preliminary screening)
- People v. Baller, 107 N.E.3d 1008 (Ill. App. 3d 2018) (discussed whether appellate court may affirm on record or must remand after improper State participation)
- People v. Lusby, 117 N.E.3d 527 (Ill. App. 3d 2018) (appellate decision addressing Miller-based Eighth Amendment claim; later allowed appeal)
- People v. Partida, 119 N.E.3d 508 (Ill. App. 3d 2018) (remanded to ensure independent screening free of State influence)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (held mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (announced Miller’s retroactivity on collateral review)