People v. Smith
2014 IL 115946
| Ill. | 2015Background
- William Smith (aka Ricky Harris) was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated discharge of a firearm under an accountability theory after a 1998 shooting; his confession and eyewitness ID evidence were presented at trial.
- Prosecutor’s opening statement indicated testimony would place a gun in Smith’s hand and identify him in a lineup, but that testimony was not presented; at closing the prosecutor acknowledged Smith was not shown to have had a gun and argued accountability instead.
- Smith appealed and lost; he filed an initial postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance re: mental retardation/competency and his petition was dismissed.
- Smith sought leave to file a successive postconviction petition arguing (1) appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the prosecutor’s opening-statement misstatement on direct appeal, and (2) postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to amend the initial petition to raise that appellate-ineffective-assistance claim.
- The trial court denied leave under the Act’s cause-and-prejudice test (725 ILCS 5/122-1(f)), the appellate court affirmed, and the Illinois Supreme Court granted review and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 122-1(f) requires first-stage (frivolous/patently without merit) standards or a stricter cause-and-prejudice pleading/proof before leave for a successive petition | Smith: leave should be granted when pleadings make an arguable showing of cause and prejudice (i.e., apply first-stage standards) | State: a more exacting cause-and-prejudice showing and supporting documentation is required before leave; first-stage standard is inapplicable | Court: Section 122-1(f) requires leave based on cause-and-prejudice evaluated on the pleadings with documentation; higher standard than first-stage frivolous review applies; leave may be denied when petition and documentation fail as a matter of law |
| Whether Smith established prejudice from prosecutor’s opening remark that a witness would place a gun in his hand when no such testimony was given | Smith: the misstatement infected the trial and deprived due process; appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising it | State: trial court instructed jury that opening statements are not evidence; closing acknowledged no gun and accountability theory was argued; any opening misstatement did not infect the trial | Court: Prejudice not shown — jury was twice instructed opening statements are not evidence, State conceded lack of gun at closing, and accountability theory supported conviction; claim did not infect the trial; no prejudice |
| Whether postconviction and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to raise the prosecutorial misstatement | Smith: counsel were ineffective for omitting the claim on appeal and in postconviction amendment | State: underlying prosecutorial error claim is meritless (no prejudice), so counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to raise it | Court: Because the underlying claim lacks merit (no prejudice), counsel were not ineffective; leave denied |
| Whether Smith’s low IQ/mental-retardation evidence established cause for failing to raise the claim earlier | Smith: low IQ impeded his ability to raise the claim in the initial postconviction petition | State: even assuming cause, Smith cannot show prejudice | Court: Court did not resolve cause because prejudice was dispositive; prejudice not shown so leave denied |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444 (2002) (adopted cause-and-prejudice test for successive postconviction claims)
- People v. Tidwell, 236 Ill. 2d 150 (2010) (petitioner must submit enough documentation to allow a circuit court to assess cause and prejudice)
- People v. Edwards, 2012 IL 111711 (2012) (first-stage frivolous standard not applicable to successive petitions; leave/ documentation required)
- People v. Flores, 153 Ill. 2d 264 (1992) (prejudice requires that omitted claim infected the trial so due process was violated)
- People v. Patterson, 192 Ill. 2d 93 (2000) (Strickland standard described for ineffective assistance)
- People v. Davison, 233 Ill. 2d 30 (2009) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192 (2004) (statutory construction principles)