People v. McMath
2021 IL App (5th) 190123-U
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- Laquize McMath was convicted of first-degree murder in 2007 and sentenced to 32 years; multiple eyewitnesses who knew him identified him at trial.
- Direct appeal (through OSAD) affirmed the conviction; trial counsel had been accused of not calling alibi/occurrence witnesses.
- McMath filed a 2009 pro se postconviction petition alleging actual innocence and ineffective assistance; the petition was summarily dismissed and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
- In 2012 McMath sought leave to file a successive postconviction petition challenging an eyewitness-identification jury instruction (IPI Criminal 4th No. 3.15). The circuit court denied leave and this court affirmed, finding no prejudice given strong eyewitness testimony.
- In January 2019 McMath again moved for leave to file a successive petition repeating the IPI 3.15 claim and arguing appellate counsel failed to amend the 2009 petition; the circuit court denied leave as res judicata and for lack of cause/prejudice.
- On this appeal OSAD filed a Finley motion to withdraw, the court afforded McMath opportunity to respond (he did not), and the appellate court affirmed the denial of leave and granted OSAD leave to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McMath satisfied the cause-and-prejudice test to obtain leave to file a successive postconviction petition | People: McMath failed to show cause or prejudice | McMath: Failure to challenge IPI 3.15 (per Herron) constituted a serious error; appellate counsel should have amended the 2009 petition | Denied — McMath failed to show prejudice; leave to file successive petition denied |
| Whether the erroneous IPI Criminal 4th No. 3.15 instruction so infected the trial that due process was violated | People: Eyewitness identifications were strong; correct instruction would not have changed outcome | McMath: IPI 3.15 is ambiguous/misleading (Herron) and its use was plain error | Held for People — evidence was not closely balanced; instruction did not prejudice the result |
| Whether claims of ineffective assistance for failing to challenge IPI 3.15 merit relief | People: Any counsel failures were not prejudicial given the strong ID evidence | McMath: Trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for not pressing the IPI 3.15 challenge | Denied — prejudice element lacking, so ineffective-assistance claims fail |
| Whether appointed appellate counsel (OSAD) may withdraw under Finley | People/OSAD: Appeal lacks merit; Finley withdrawal appropriate | McMath: (no pro se response filed) | Granted — court found no meritorious argument; OSAD permitted to withdraw |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1987) (standard for permitting appointed counsel to withdraw when no nonfrivolous issues remain)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (Ill. 2005) (IPI Criminal 4th No. 3.15 described as ambiguous and misleading)
- People v. Jones, 191 Ill. 2d 194 (Ill. 2000) (res judicata effect of initial postconviction ruling; successive petitions require leave)
- People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444 (Ill. 2002) (both cause and prejudice must be shown to obtain leave for a successive petition)