People v. Vidaurri

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly denied defendant’s motion seeking leave to file successive post-conviction petition, where defendant alleged in said petition that: (1) newly discovered evidence corroborated his claim that his confession was coerced by certain Chicago police detective; and (2) his 45-year sentence on charges of first-degree murder and attempted first degree murder was unconstitutional because he was only 19 years old when his offenses were committed. Appellate Court, in affirming trial court, found that res judicata barred defendant’s claim that his confession was coerced, where: (1) defendant unsuccessfully raised similar issue in his original post-conviction petition and did not establish requisite “prejudice” in the instant petition; (2) conduct by detective at issue in defendant’s case was not sufficiently similar to conduct contained in affidavits from others alleging misconduct by said detective; and (3) certain proffered affidavits did not support defendant’s claims of similar pattern and practice of alleged misconduct by detective. Appellate Court also found that defendant did not satisfy any “cause and prejudice” test for raising instant proportionate penalties claim with respect to his sentence in his successive post-conviction petition, where he could have raised said claim in his original post-conviction petition.