People v. Calhoun
68 N.E.3d 508
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- In 2001 a drive-by shooting killed Ardeen Adams; eyewitnesses Robert Evans, Bridget Banks, and William Robinson identified Kenneth Calhoun and codefendant Kevin Smith as shooters. Calhoun was convicted at a 2005 bench trial and sentenced to 40 years.
- At trial Banks and Robinson recanted portions of earlier identifications; the court found their trial recantations not credible and relied on their prior statements and Evans’s positive identifications.
- Calhoun filed multiple pro se postconviction petitions. He attached affidavits from Banks and Robinson (2010–2011) recanting their identifications and asserting police coercion/payment to witnesses. Those affidavits were previously considered and rejected.
- In 2012 an affidavit from Evans (obtained later in Smith’s postconviction case) stated he had doubts about his identifications and identified a different person as one shooter; Evans’s affidavit focuses largely on Smith and does not clearly recant identification of Calhoun.
- The circuit court denied Calhoun leave to file a second successive postconviction petition raising a freestanding actual-innocence claim; the appellate majority affirmed, holding Evans’s affidavit does not establish a colorable actual-innocence claim as to Calhoun and Calhoun failed the cause-and-prejudice test for successive petitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Calhoun) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether successive petition alleging actual innocence based on recanting affidavits warrants leave to file | Affidavits from Evans, Banks, Robinson are newly discovered, material, noncumulative, and so conclusive they would probably change result | Affidavits are cumulative or insufficiently conclusive as to Calhoun; procedural bar for successive petitions not met | Denied: leave to file denied — affidavits do not present a colorable freestanding actual-innocence claim as to Calhoun |
| Whether Evans’s affidavit constitutes newly discovered evidence exonerating Calhoun | Evans’s posttrial doubts (‘‘identifications’’) and naming a third-party shooter undermine trial ID evidence | Evans’s affidavit primarily targets Smith; it provides no facts exonerating Calhoun or identifying an alternate rear-seat shooter | Denied: affidavit insufficient to establish newly discovered, conclusive evidence of Calhoun’s innocence |
| Whether Calhoun satisfied cause-and-prejudice to overcome successive-petition bar | Banks/Robinson affidavits alleging Evans was paid put Calhoun on notice; Evans affidavit obtained later so cause exists | Calhoun had Banks/Robinson affidavits earlier but made no effort to contact Evans; no objective external impediment shown; court already considered related doubts | Denied: Calhoun fails cause prong and therefore cannot proceed under successive-petition framework |
| Whether Calhoun was entitled to same treatment as codefendant Smith (dissent) | Disparate treatment; Evans’s affidavit equally undermines identifications of both men and counsel should be appointed to develop Evans affidavit as to Calhoun | Different procedural posture: Smith’s was an initial postconviction petition; Calhoun’s was second successive — standards differ | Majority rejects parity argument; dissent urges remand for counsel and second-stage proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (standard for actual-innocence gateway to overcome procedural default)
- People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319 (Ill. 2009) (successive postconviction petitions generally barred; exceptions described)
- People v. Edwards, 2012 IL 111711 (Ill. 2012) (standard for evaluating colorable freestanding actual-innocence claims in successive petitions)
- People v. Coleman, 2013 IL 113307 (Ill. 2013) (defines new, material, noncumulative, conclusive in actual-innocence context)
- People v. Davis, 2014 IL 115595 (Ill. 2014) (cause-and-prejudice standard for successive petitions explained)
- People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444 (Ill. 2002) (successive petitions raising miscarriage-of-justice/actual-innocence claims addressed)
- Tenner v. People, 206 Ill. 2d 381 (Ill. 2002) (discusses high hurdle for successive petitions)
- People v. Collier, 387 Ill. App. 3d 630 (Ill. App. 2008) (recantations that impeach credibility but do not establish total vindication do not support freestanding actual-innocence claims)