2022 IL App (4th) 210677
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- David Beverly was convicted of first-degree murder after a 2016 jury trial and sentenced to 75 years; conviction affirmed but sentence vacated on direct appeal; Beverly filed a postconviction petition before resentencing.
- Beverly alleged trial counsel Dan Jackson provided ineffective assistance for numerous failures, including not obtaining geolocational cell‑phone data, failing to admit a printed text from Lubamba showing an ‘At panera’ timestamp, and not locating/calling occurrence witnesses (Joseph Carter, Tolanda Boykins, Jason Eatman, Darnell Hayes).
- The circuit court advanced only two claims to an evidentiary (third‑stage) hearing: Jackson’s alleged failure to locate/interview/call Joseph and Boykins; the court dismissed the rest at the second stage as conclusory, unsupported, or rebutted by the record.
- At the third‑stage hearing Joseph testified (and a video of his police interview was admitted); Boykins failed to appear though served. Defendant’s postconviction counsel (Propps) did not request a continuance after the State produced the video.
- The circuit court found Joseph’s testimony not credible and concluded Jackson was not deficient (and Beverly not prejudiced) in failing to call Joseph or Boykins; it denied the postconviction petition. Beverly appealed.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Beverly’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the geolocation claim warranted third‑stage review | Geolocation claim speculative and unsupported by the petition/records | Jackson failed to obtain geolocational data that would show Beverly was not at the scene | Dismissed at 2d stage—allegation conclusory and not well‑pleaded; no substantial showing |
| 2. Whether failure to admit the printed ‘At panera’ text required relief | Text evidence was elicited at trial; printed exhibit could be strategically excluded and would not likely change outcome | Jackson should have admitted the printed text showing 6:23 CDT to support an alibi | Dismissed at 2d stage—exhibit not clearly helpful to alibi; trial strategy plausible; no prejudice shown |
| 3. Whether postconviction counsel (Propps) provided unreasonable assistance at the 3d‑stage (Boykins absent; Joseph video) | Propps had a reasonable strategy; she questioned Joseph and was not prejudiced by not seeking continuance | Propps failed to secure Boykins, didn’t subpoena or move for continuance, and didn’t obtain video discovery in time | No relief—court held Propps’s performance not shown deficient under Strickland standard; no prejudice established |
| 4. Whether Propps unreasonably failed to frame/support other claims (including actual innocence) | Many claims lacked available supporting affidavits or were meritless; actual innocence evidence not conclusive | Propps should have framed Joseph/Eatman affidavits as actual innocence and supplied more supporting material | Denied—new affidavits were not of conclusive character to probably change a retrial outcome; failure to raise actual innocence not unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance + prejudice)
- People v. Domagala, 987 N.E.2d 767 (Ill. 2013) (second‑stage test; well‑pleaded facts not rebutted by record taken as true)
- People v. Buffer, 137 N.E.3d 763 (Ill. 2019) (overview of Post‑Conviction Hearing Act stages)
- People v. Pendleton, 861 N.E.2d 999 (Ill. 2006) (first‑stage dismissal standard and procedure)
- People v. Coleman, 701 N.E.2d 1063 (Ill. 1998) (need for affidavits/supporting documentation; nonfactual conclusions insufficient)
- People v. Dupree, 124 N.E.3d 908 (Ill. 2018) (application of Strickland to postconviction ineffective‑assistance claims)
- People v. Custer, 155 N.E.3d 374 (Ill. 2019) (postconviction counsel entitled only to a reasonable level of assistance under the Act)