Defendant appealed from the trial court’s denial of his motion for leave to file a pro se successive post-conviction petition. Defendant argued in his petition that newly discovered evidence corroborated his claim that his confession was coerced by the police, that his trial court was ineffective for failing to call a supporting witness at his suppression hearing and at trial, and that his 45 year sentence was unconstitutional because he was 19 years old at the time the offenses were committed. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the newly discovered evidence did not provide sufficient similarity to defendant’s claims of misconduct, that defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were barred by res judicata, and that defendant could not meet the cause and prejudice test to file a successive post-conviction petition. (REYES and BURKE, concurring)
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Post-Conviction Hearing Act