People v. Morgan
44 N.E.3d 433
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- In 2001 defendant Cornell Morgan (aka "Doo") was convicted of attempted murder and aggravated battery with a firearm for shooting Jarrett Garcia; sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment. Trial witnesses (victim Garcia and two bystanders) identified Morgan; police recovered a marijuana package Garcia discarded in a Dumpster.
- Defense presented alibi/support that Morgan’s mother and friend said he stayed at home/with friends on Dec. 26, 2001, and that his (or his mother’s) Camry had been repainted at a body shop around the relevant time.
- In 2010 Morgan filed a pro se postconviction petition raising three claims: newly discovered eyewitness (Annie Coleman) claiming another man ("B.J."/"Big John") was the shooter; ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call mitigation/character witnesses at sentencing; and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not raising that sentencing-ineffectiveness.
- The court dismissed the ineffective-assistance claims at the second stage. A third-stage evidentiary hearing was held on the actual-innocence claim; Coleman testified but the trial court found her testimony not credible and granted the State’s directed finding, denying relief.
- Morgan appealed, arguing (1) the court erred in rejecting the actual-innocence claim, (2) the court erred in dismissing the ineffective-assistance claims, and (3) postconviction counsel violated Ill. S. Ct. R. 651(c) by inadequate consultation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coleman’s newly discovered eyewitness testimony established actual innocence warranting a new trial | Coleman’s testimony is newly discovered, material, and would likely change the outcome because she identified another shooter | Trial testimony and photos corroborate victim/bystanders and contradict Coleman on victim location, presence of others, and fence; Coleman used marijuana and had inconsistent statements | Court: Coleman not credible; contradictions with trial evidence fatal; no manifest error in denying new trial |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call three mitigation witnesses at sentencing (and appellate counsel ineffective for not raising it) | Morgan: counsel failed to interview/call character witnesses who would have mitigated sentence | State: petitioner never alleged counsel knew of witnesses; strategic reasons existed not to call them; even if called, the strong aggravation evidence made prejudice unlikely | Court: Dismissal proper. No showing counsel knew of witnesses nor resulting prejudice; appellate counsel not deficient for not raising meritless claim |
| Whether postconviction counsel violated Rule 651(c) by failing to consult personally with Morgan | Morgan: he met only with Adam Jr. (or via intermediary); Adam Sr. did not personally consult, so Rule 651(c) not satisfied | State: record shows Morgan agreed to joint representation by Adam Sr. and Adam Jr.; joint Rule 651(c) certificate shows in-person consultation and record review | Court: Rule 651(c) satisfied by joint representation and certificate; no rebuttal of presumption of compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Edwards, 197 Ill. 2d 239 (Ill. 2001) (describing three-stage postconviction proceedings)
- People v. Coleman, 206 Ill. 2d 261 (Ill. 2002) (burden at third-stage evidentiary hearing and credibility determinations)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319 (Ill. 2009) (freestanding actual innocence claims under Illinois Constitution)
- People v. Gonzalez, 407 Ill. App. 3d 1026 (Ill. App. 2011) (trial court credibility determinations of recanting/new affidavits upheld)
- People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504 (Ill. 1984) (prejudice standard under Strickland)