People v. Gillespie, 407 Ill. App. 3d 113

Gillespie was convicted of first-degree murder in 1994 based on his participation in a gang-related shooting at a beauty shop.
Codefendants included Holiday, Clarkson, Hughes, and Earl with varying outcomes on direct appeal.
Gillespie challenged the conviction via postconviction proceedings beginning with an initial pro se petition; several petitions followed, culminating in third and fourth petitions and a 2-1401 petition.
He alleged coercion, Brady violations, and ineffective assistance of trial and postconviction counsel, with focus on police brutality at Area 1 headquarters.
The circuit court denied leave to file the third postconviction petition and dismissed the 2-1401 petition; later, a fourth postconviction petition was filed and also dismissed, with consolidation on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gillespie was improperly denied leave to file a third successive postconviction petition.	Gillespie argues Brady violations and pattern of torture evidence justify new relief.	People contend res judicata and Ortiz standards bar new relief absent new, conclusive evidence.	affirmed denial of leave; not entitled to postconviction relief on third petition.
Whether the Alexander affidavit constitutes newly discovered evidence supporting actual innocence.	Gillespie asserts Alexander’s statement undermines theory of guilt and supports innocence.	State argues Alexander was known, not newly discovered, and does not exculpate Gillespie.	not newly discovered; not likely to change retrial result; no innocence finding.
Whether trial counsel’s failure to call Alexander amounted to ineffective assistance.	Gillespie maintains counsel should have called Alexander to bolster innocence claim.	Counsel acted reasonably; Alexander’s testimony would have conflicted with Gillespie’s other testimony.	Strickland prejudice prong not satisfied; no ineffective assistance.
Whether the 2-1401 petitions were timely or improperly dismissed.	Gillespie argues 2-1401 should be available due to newly discovered evidence.	Section 2-1401 is time-barred; no tolling factors shown; claims meritless.	2-1401 petitions untimely and barred; no relief.

Ortiz v. United States, 235 Ill.2d 319 (2009) (relaxation of res judicata for actual innocence claims in successive petitions)
Patterson v. Williams, 192 Ill.2d 93 (2000) (new evidence standards for relief; not all new evidence suffices)
Hobley II, 182 Ill.2d 404 (1998) (newly discovered evidence must be of such conclusive character to change retrial outcome)
Orange v. State, 195 Ill.2d 437 (2001) (distinguishes when new evidence justifies hearing based on prior naming of officers)
Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (material Brady evidence requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
Anderson v. People, 375 Ill.App.3d 990 (2007) (actual innocence standard in Illinois Court of Appeals)
Gosier v. State, 205 Ill.2d 198 (2001) (res judicata effect in postconviction petitions)
Mahaffey v. Jones, 194 Ill.2d 154 (2000) (timeliness and standards for 2-1401 petitions)