2012 IL App (4th) 110415
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Snow was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder in 2001 and sentenced to natural life.
- In May 2004 Snow filed a pro se postconviction petition; Exoneration Project later joined.
- In 2010 Snow filed a 53-page amended postconviction petition with exhibits; court allowed some supplement.
- State moved to dismiss; court dismissed the amended petition at second stage, denying discovery and Beaman/Drew-type evidence.
- Snow appealed, challenging the second-stage dismissal, the March 2011 record-supplement motion, and ballistics testing request.
- Appellate court affirmed the dismissal and denied relief on the ballistics motion, remaining claims forfeited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether second-stage dismissal was proper | Snow asserts the court used an improper standard and should have held an evidentiary hearing. | People contends proper de novo review supports dismissal. | Second-stage dismissal affirmed; improper standard alone not reversible. |
| Actual innocence—novelty and due diligence | Snow contends newly discovered evidence supports actual-innocence claim. | Beaman and Drew are the only clearly newly discovered authorities; due diligence lacking elsewhere. | Evidence not newly discovered; due diligence not shown; no entitlement to relief. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel—res judicata | Claims not barred because not fully addressed on direct appeal and outside-record evidence exists. | Precedent bars claims already addressed on direct appeal or waived; res judicata applies. | Postconviction claims barred by res judicata/waiver; no merits adjudicated on appeal. |
| Brady claim viability | State suppressed favorable/impeachment evidence; warrants new trial. | No suppression; information was public or not material. | No Brady violation; no material suppression found for Pelo, Winkler, Schaal, Roland, or Scheel. |
| Ballistics testing under 116-3 | IBIS testing could reveal the true perpetrator and aid innocence claim. | Identity not shown as the central issue in testing; chain of custody undisputed; testing not materially relevant. | Court did not abuse discretion; testing would not materially advance innocence; motion denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill.2d 458 (2006) (three-stage postconviction framework; standard of review)
- People v. Coleman, 183 Ill.2d 366 (1998) (requires substantial showing of constitutional violation)
- People v. Alberts, 383 Ill.App.3d 374 (2008) (pleading sufficiency; nonrecord facts considered)
- People v. Ligon, 239 Ill.2d 94 (2010) (res judicata/waiver on direct appeal; postconviction limits)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality framework for suppressed evidence)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (impeachment evidence as Brady material)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (coaching/credibility evidence and materiality)
- Savory v. Genovese, 197 Ill.2d 203 (2001) (forensic testing; material relevance to innocence)
- Pursley v. Illinois, 407 Ill.App.3d 526 (2011) (IBIS testing and materiality standards)
- Dominguez v. People, 366 Ill.App.3d 468 (2006) (second-stage dismissal; proper standard affirmations)
- Demitro v. People, 406 Ill.App.3d 954 (2010) (de novo review on second-stage dismissals)
- Bar Bargain/Barth v. State Farm, 371 Ill.App.3d 498 (2007) (advocacy and argument standards on appeal)