People v. Rivera
2016 IL App (1st) 132573
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Michael Rivera was convicted of first-degree murder in 2000 for the 1998 fatal shooting of Marcus Lee; he received an 85‑year extended term sentence and his conviction and sentence were previously affirmed on direct appeal.
- Rivera filed a pro se postconviction petition (2008) alleging, among other claims, actual innocence supported by an affidavit from codefendant John Crowe claiming Crowe — not Rivera — fired the fatal shots.
- Crowe had earlier been convicted, that conviction was reversed, and on remand Crowe entered a guilty plea; Crowe later executed the 2004 affidavit recanting his earlier trial testimony and claiming sole responsibility.
- At second-stage postconviction proceedings the State moved to dismiss, arguing Crowe’s affidavit was unreliable and contradicted the record (including Crowe’s plea colloquy); the circuit court obtained and reviewed Crowe’s plea transcript and found the affidavit not credible, then dismissed Rivera’s petition.
- On appeal Rivera argued the court erred by considering materials outside Rivera’s case record and making a credibility determination at the second stage, and that his postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance by not objecting to that procedure.
- The appellate court acknowledged the trial court’s procedural error (relying on materials outside Rivera’s record and making credibility findings at the second stage per People v. Sanders) but affirmed dismissal on the alternative ground that Crowe’s affidavit was not sufficiently conclusive to probably change the outcome on retrial; it also held Rivera’s postconviction counsel complied with Rule 651(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rivera) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) May the trial court consider Crowe’s plea transcript and make credibility findings at the second stage? | The court could compare Crowe’s plea facts and take judicial notice; the plea refutes the affidavit. | Court erred: review limited to petitioner’s case record; credibility determinations are for a third‑stage evidentiary hearing. | Court erred to weigh credibility and rely on materials outside Rivera’s record (per Sanders), but error was harmless because of other grounds for dismissal. |
| 2) Does Crowe’s affidavit establish actual innocence (new, material, conclusive)? | The affidavit is unreliable, recantation‑like, and contradicted by trial record and plea colloquy. | The affidavit is a full confession by Crowe and shows Rivera’s innocence. | Affidavit is not of such conclusive character that it would probably change the result on retrial; dismissal affirmed. |
| 3) Did postconviction counsel provide reasonable assistance under Ill. S. Ct. R. 651(c)? | Counsel filed the Rule 651(c) certificate, reviewed the record, and did not concede the petition’s merits. | Counsel unreasonably failed to object to the court’s consideration of Crowe’s plea and effectively agreed to its use. | Counsel’s performance did not fall below Rule 651(c); standing on the pro se petition was not a concession of merit. |
| 4) Is remand required for a new judge or new counsel because of procedural error? | No — remand unnecessary because affidavit fails the conclusive‑evidence test and counsel was adequate. | Yes — procedural error and counsel’s acquiescence warrant remand. | No remand; dismissal stands despite the court’s procedural error. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rivera, 348 Ill. App. 3d 168 (Ill. App. Ct.) (direct‑appeal opinion affirming Rivera’s conviction) (background on trial evidence)
- People v. Rivera, 227 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill.) (Illinois Supreme Court decision affirming conviction after limited remand) (describes strength of State’s case)
- Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (U.S. 2009) (U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing harmless‑error review on Batson/peremptory challenge issue)
- People v. Crowe, 327 Ill. App. 3d 930 (Ill. App. Ct.) (prior appellate decision reversing Crowe’s conviction and ordering new trial) (explains Crowe’s procedural history)
- People v. Sanders, 2016 IL 118123 (Ill.) (Illinois Supreme Court) (trial court may only consider the record of the petitioner’s case at second stage; credibility determinations require a third‑stage hearing)
- People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319 (Ill.) (standard for newly discovered evidence / actual innocence requires conclusive evidence likely to change result)
- People v. Morgan, 212 Ill. 2d 148 (Ill.) (defines actual‑innocence test and discusses standards for postconviction review)
- People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366 (Ill.) (procedural framework for second‑stage dismissal review)