People v. Lee
2016 IL App (1st) 152425
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Defendant Anthony D. Lee was convicted after a bench trial of multiple counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault and one count of aggravated kidnapping; the trial court found the victim credible and sentenced Lee to an aggregate 100-year term. Convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Lee filed multiple postconviction petitions dating back to 1998 alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to interview or call several witnesses who would have supported a consent/innocence theory; proceedings produced a series of dismissals, appeals, and two Illinois Supreme Court supervisory orders directing further review.
- After leave to file a successive pro se petition was granted (and counsel later amended), Lee submitted five affidavits from five affiants (Massenburg brothers, Charlene Parker, Phillip Elston, and Gail Pinkston) asserting facts that could undercut the State’s version of events or identify post-event observations. Some affidavits lacked dates or attachments (a photo) and some described events after the victim’s outcry.
- The trial court treated the matter at the second stage, considered the affidavits and the record, and dismissed the successive petition for failure to make a substantial showing of ineffective assistance (no showing of prejudice under Strickland).
- On appeal the First District reviewed the second-stage dismissal de novo and affirmed, holding that even accepting the affidavits as true, there was no reasonable probability the outcome of the trial would have been different given the victim’s corroborated testimony, photographic injuries, and lineup identification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lee made a substantial showing of ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel’s failure to call five proposed witnesses | The affidavits do not create a reasonable probability of a different outcome; they are unpersuasive, untethered to the victim/defendant, untimely, or post-date the assault | The affidavits, if credited, would have supported a theory that the encounter was consensual or otherwise undercut the State’s proof and thus counsel’s failure to call them was prejudicial | Held: No. Even assuming affidavits were true, Lee failed to show prejudice under Strickland; dismissal affirmed |
| Weight and materiality of the specific affidavits (identification, timing, missing photo) | Affidavits are vague, identify neither parties nor victim reliably, refer to times after the victim’s outcry, or lack the asserted attachments; they do not materially undermine the trial evidence | The affidavits supply new, exculpatory facts that trial counsel could have used to impeach the State’s timeline and credibility | Held: Affidavits insufficient. Massenburg affidavits do not identify persons; Parker’s photo was not produced and could support the State’s timeline; Elston’s observations post-date the assault; Pinkston’s hearsay (from co-defendant) conflicts with Lee’s trial testimony |
| Proper procedural stage and standard of review for a successive postconviction petition | Successive petitions that pass leave are docketed for second-stage proceedings; second-stage review tests legal sufficiency and asks whether the petition plus documentation make a substantial showing; appellate review is de novo | Lee argued supervisory orders required reconsideration and that his successive petition should proceed to an evidentiary hearing | Held: The court followed supervisory orders to permit filing and then applied normal second-stage standards; appellate de novo review affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective assistance test)
- People v. Domagala, 2013 IL 113688 (explaining second/third-stage postconviction standards and Strickland application)
- People v. Edwards, 197 Ill. 2d 239 (describing review stages and documentation considered at second stage)
- People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458 (noting de novo review of second-stage dismissals)
- People v. Smith, 2014 IL 115946 (describing cause-and-prejudice standard for leave to file a successive petition)
- People v. Colon, 225 Ill. 2d 125 (defining prejudice standard under Strickland)
- People v. Flores, 153 Ill. 2d 264 (noting that either Strickland prong may be the basis for dismissal)
- People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504 (Illinois adoption of Strickland)