People v. Brown
2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 706
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Pernell Brown was convicted in 2002 of first-degree murder for the 2001 shooting of Robert “Rah-Rah” Byrd in a Chicago sandwich shop; two in-shop eyewitnesses (Thomass and Blackburn) identified Brown as the shooter and the surveillance tape corroborated aspects of their accounts. Brown was sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment.
- Brown pursued multiple postconviction petitions. A prior successive petition relying on an affidavit from Martell Halbert (claiming Brown’s brother David Payton was the shooter) was denied because the surveillance video had revealed Halbert’s presence and the affidavit was not sufficiently conclusive.
- In 2014 Brown sought leave to file a second successive postconviction petition presenting new affidavits from Terrell Austin and Randy Norwood: Austin says he saw Payton arrive, enter the shop with a gun, and leave after shots; Norwood says Payton borrowed a gun earlier and later positively identified Payton on the surveillance video.
- The trial court found Austin and Norwood’s affidavits newly discovered but not of such conclusive character that a retrial result would probably change, reasoning they were not eyewitnesses to the shooting inside the shop and their statements were rebutted by the in‑shop eyewitness identifications and other trial evidence (car tied to victim’s/defendant’s circle).
- The federal district court later reviewed Brown’s habeas petition and similarly concluded the new affidavits did not rebut the State’s trial evidence; the state appellate court affirmed the denial of leave to file the successive petition.
Issues
| Issue | Brown's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown raised a colorable actual-innocence claim to obtain leave to file a successive postconviction petition | The Austin and Norwood affidavits (and earlier Halbert affidavit) identify Brown’s half-brother Payton as the shooter and, taken as true, would exonerate Brown | The affidavits are not newly discovered (or are not sufficiently reliable), are non-eyewitness or cumulative, and are directly rebutted by in‑shop eyewitness IDs and other trial evidence | Denied: affidavits not of such conclusive character that it is more likely than not no reasonable juror would convict; leave to file was properly denied |
| Whether new affidavits were "newly discovered" and discoverable earlier with due diligence | Brown contends he only recently learned of Austin and Norwood; affidavits therefore qualify as newly discovered | The State argues witnesses were connected to known actors and prior evidence (e.g., surveillance) made discovery possible earlier | Court questioned novelty/diligence but ruled outcome the same even if treated as newly discovered because affidavits lack requisite conclusiveness |
| Proper standard and scope at leave-to-file stage (taking allegations as true vs. assessing probative weight) | Brown: allegations must be taken as true at screening and thus warrant testing at later stages | State: court may consider whether new evidence is contradicted by trial record and whether it is sufficiently conclusive | Court applied the established standard: while allegations are taken as true unless positively rebutted, the new evidence must still be of such conclusive character to probably change outcome; here it was not |
| Preclusive effect of federal habeas ruling on state proceedings | Brown: federal denial does not preclude state review or is distinguishable | State: federal decision addressed same evidence and supports collateral estoppel | Court decline to rest decision on preclusion but noted federal court reached same substantive conclusion; affirmed denial on merits regardless |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (new evidence gateway: actual-innocence standard requires that no reasonable juror would have convicted)
- People v. Edwards, 2012 IL 111711 (Illinois adoption of Schlup framework for successive postconviction petitions)
- People v. Sanders, 2016 IL 118123 (requirement that well-pleaded factual allegations be taken as true unless positively rebutted by trial record; conclusive-character requirement)
- People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366 (postconviction relief limited to constitutional deprivations; background on proceedings)
- People v. Tenner, 206 Ill. 2d 381 (preclusion doctrines and limits on successive petitions)
- People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319 (new eyewitness testimony that directly contradicts prosecution witnesses can support actual-innocence relief)
- People v. Rivera, 227 Ill. 2d 1 (discussion of strength of trial evidence versus new postconviction affidavits)