People v. Calhoun
2016 IL App (1st) 141021
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 2005 bench trial Kenneth Calhoun was convicted of first‑degree murder (Ardeen Adams) based principally on eyewitness identifications by Robert Evans, Bridget Banks, and William Robinson; Calhoun received an aggregate 40‑year sentence.
- At trial Banks and Robinson recanted portions of their earlier identifications; the court found their recantations not credible and credited their pretrial identifications and Evans’s testimony.
- Calhoun filed multiple postconviction petitions. His first successive petition (2012) included Banks’s and Robinson’s affidavits recanting; the court denied leave and this court affirmed.
- In 2013 Calhoun sought leave to file a second successive petition adding an affidavit from Evans (obtained in separate proceedings) in which Evans expressed posttrial “doubts” about his identifications and described misidentification of codefendant Smith; Evans’s affidavit said little about Calhoun specifically.
- The trial court denied leave to file the second successive petition; the appellate majority affirmed, holding Evans’s affidavit did not establish a colorable claim of actual innocence for Calhoun and that Calhoun failed the cause‑and‑prejudice test for successive petitions.
- A dissent argued Evans’s affidavit, when read in context and given similarity to codefendant Smith’s successful postconviction claim, warranted appointment of counsel and further proceedings for Calhoun.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Calhoun’s second successive petition set forth a colorable freestanding actual‑innocence claim | State: Evans’s affidavit does not exonerate Calhoun; it focuses on Smith and is not newly discovered as to Banks/Robinson recantations; petition fails as matter of law | Calhoun: Evans’s affidavit raises newly discovered, material, noncumulative, conclusive evidence undermining convictions and likely to change result on retrial | Denied — affidavit insufficient for actual‑innocence relief as to Calhoun; it largely concerns Smith and does not conclusively exonerate Calhoun |
| Whether cause and prejudice justified filing a second successive petition | State: Calhoun had Banks’s and Robinson’s affidavits by 2012 and made no adequate attempt to obtain Evans’s affidavit earlier; no cause; no prejudice because trial court already knew of allegations against Evans | Calhoun: Could not obtain Evans’s affidavit earlier; Evans’s later affidavit is critical new proof; prejudice exists because the new affidavit undermines eyewitness identification | Denied — Calhoun failed to show cause for not raising Evans’s affidavit earlier and failed to show prejudice; procedural bar not relaxed |
| Standard for evaluating leave to file successive petition alleging actual innocence | State: leave should be denied where petitioner cannot set forth colorable actual innocence claim under Edwards/Schlup standards | Calhoun: (implicitly) same standards apply; pro se status should not disadvantage him; counsel should be appointed to develop claim | Applied Edwards/Schlup; majority found claim not colorable and affirmed denial |
| Whether Calhoun’s pro se status required appointment of counsel for fair development of claim | Calhoun: lack of counsel impaired ability to obtain Evans affidavit and fully develop claim | State: procedural standards for successive petitions differ from initial petitions; pro se status does not excuse failure to satisfy cause and prejudice | Denied — majority held pro se status did not excuse inability to meet cause/prejudice; dissent would have appointed counsel and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (standards for counsel withdrawal and postconviction representation)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual‑innocence gateway standard for federal habeas relief)
- People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444 (2002) (successive postconviction petitions raising actual innocence proceed outside cause‑and‑prejudice test)
- People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319 (2009) (successive postconviction petitions and limitations; trigger for relaxing procedural bar)
- People v. Coleman, 2013 IL 113307 (Ill. 2013) (defining new, material, noncumulative, conclusive elements for actual‑innocence claims)
- People v. Davis, 2014 IL 115595 (Ill. 2014) (cause and prejudice framework and procedural hurdles for successive petitions)
- People v. Collier, 387 Ill. App. 3d 630 (2008) (affidavit recantations that affect credibility do not necessarily amount to actual innocence)
- People v. Tenner, 206 Ill. 2d 381 (2003) (discussion of procedural default and successive petitions)