People v. Howard

865 N.E.2d 472

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Respondent-Appellee, v. Stanley HOWARD, Petitioner-Appellant.

No. 1-05-1662.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division.

March 30, 2007.

Arthur Loevy, Jon Loevy, Michael Kanovitz, Russell Ainsworth, Loevy & Loevy, Chicago, for Appellant.

Richard A. Devine, State's Attorney, James E. Fitzgerald, Marie Quinlivan Czech, Assistant State's Attorneys, Cook County State's Attorney's Office, Chicago, for Appellee.

Justice JOSEPH GORDON delivered the opinion of the court:

Petitioner, Stanley Howard, appeals from the circuit court's denial of his petition to expunge records of his arrest for a crime for which he was pardoned by the Governor. Petitioner contends that the statute providing for expungement of arrest records vests no discretion within the circuit court to deny a petition that, otherwise meets the statutory requirements for expungement. Alternatively, he contends that the court would have abused any discretion it had by denying his petition. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On November 1, 1984, Chicago police arrested petitioner for a number of crimes. At that time, police arrested petitioner for the offenses of kidnaping, armed robbery and residential burglary committed on March 13, 1983. Petitioner was also arrested at that time for the attempted kidnaping, armed robbery, and murder of two off-duty police officers on March 14, 1983. Yet another set of offenses defendant was then arrested for included possession of a stolen motor vehicle, armed robbery, kidnaping, home invasion, and rape, committed on May 26, 1983. Finally, police arrested defendant that day for the attempted robbery of two victims, plus the murder of one of those victims, committed on May 20, 1984. The State elected to nol-pros the charges for the offenses committed on March 13, 1983. But, petitioner was tried on the charges filed for the offenses committed on March 14, was found guilty, and sentenced to 28 years. Petitioner was likewise tried for the offenses of May 26, 1983, found guilty, and sentenced to a consecutive sentence of 50 years. Finally, petitioner faced trial and was found guilty on charges stemming from the attempted robbery and murder of May 20, 1984, and received a sentence of death.

The State introduced petitioner's confession at the trial on petitioner's murder charge. In a postconviction petition, petitioner alleged that his confession resulted from police torture. On January 10, 2003, prior to the resolution of his postconviction claim, petitioner received a full pardon from the Governor.

In a public speech on January 11, 2003, then-Governor Ryan explained the bases for his grant of petitioner's pardon.¹ After advising his audience that "[t]here are more innocent people on death row," Governor Ryan went on to describe petitioner's death case:

"Evidence uncovered after trial similarly presents a compelling case that Stanley Howard did not commit the crime for which he faces execution.

He was charged with coming up to a man in a car, asking for a match, and then shooting the man in a fit of temper when the man refused the request. However, witnesses subsequently were located who heard the crime unfold and whose testimony establishes that the shooter knew the victim and his companion and that the shooter had been stalking them so that he could, in his words, `catch' them.

There was no physical evidence of any kind against Howard. The state's case consisted entirely of two items of evidence. First, there was an alleged identification by a single eyewitness, the victim's companion. Eyewitness identifications are never very reliable, but here the identification was particularly unreliable. The witness had been drinking heavily at the time of the shooting. She also had a restricted ability and a limited opportunity to see the shooter in the dark at night.

More importantly, she made her identification of Howard six months after the shooting and at the time was only able to make a tentative identification that Howard looked similar to the shooter. Finally, her version of what happened was directly contradicted by ballistics evidence and the testimony of the witnesses who heard what happened that night.

The only other evidence against Howard was his so-called confession, which he has maintained from the beginning was obtained by brutal torture. Like Madison Hobley, Stanley Howard was suffocated with a plastic bag until he confessed. There is strong evidence that corroborates his account. His confession was obtained by Area 2 detectives. In Howard's case, medical evidence uncovered after trial directly establishes that Howard was physically harmed while in the custody of the Area 2 detectives.

He called his father and said these `detectives are killing me.' His father immediately called OPS and the FBI.

In addition, witnesses have come forward after trial who corroborate that Howard was in a battered condition during his Area 2 interrogation. Having looked at all of the evidence of torture, even an investigator for the Chicago Police Department's own Office of Professional Standards has concluded that Howard indeed was abused by Area 2 detectives before he gave his so-called confession."

After relating the legal histories of other persons he intended to pardon along with petitioner, Governor Ryan went on to state:

"What I can't understand is why the courts can't find a way to act in the interest of justice. Here we have four more men who were wrongfully convicted and sentenced to die by the state for crimes the courts should have seen they did not commit. * * *

* * *

* * * Today I am pardoning them of the crimes for which they were wrongfully prosecuted and sentenced to die.

I have reviewed these cases and I believe a manifest injustice has occurred. I have reviewed these cases and I believe these men are innocent."

The pardon itself stated, in part, as follows:

"Now, Know, Ye, that I, GEORGE H. RYAN, Governor of the State of Illinois, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution of this State, do by these presents:

COMMUTE THE SENTENCE OF AND PARDON BASED ON INNOCENCE STANLEY HOWARD

Grant commutation of sentence to time served on the crime of Murder, Attempt Armed Robbery, Grant Pardon Based on Innocence on the Crime of Murder, Attempt Armed Robbery * * * With Order Permitting Expungement Under the Provisions of 20 ILCS 2630/5."

At some point, petitioner apparently filed a petition to expunge the record of his arrest for his murder conviction under subsection 5(c) of the Criminal Identification Act ("Act") (20 ILCS 2630/5(c) (West 2004)). The initial petition is not included in the record. On July 19, 2004, petitioner filed an amended petition to expunge that alleged, substantively, in its entirety:

"1. The Petitioner was granted a pardon by the Governor.

2. The pardon specifically authorizes expungement.

3. Under penalties provided by law pursuant to Subsection 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the undersigned Petitioner certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except to matters therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned Petitioner certifies as aforesaid that he believes the same to be true.

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner asks the Court to expunge his arrest records and return the same to Petitioner at the address shown above."

Subsection 5(c) of the Act, at that time, stated:

"Whenever a person who has been convicted of an offense is granted a pardon by the Governor which specifically authorizes expungement, he may, upon verified petition to the chief judge of the circuit where the person had been convicted, any judge of the circuit designated by the Chief Judge, or in counties of less than 3,000,000 inhabitants, the presiding trial judge at the defendant's trial, may have a court order entered expunging the record of arrest from the official records of the arresting authority and order that the records of the clerk of the circuit court and the Department be sealed until further order of the court upon good cause shown or as otherwise provided herein, and the name of the defendant obliterated from the official index requested to be kept by the circuit court clerk under Section 16 of the Clerks of Courts Act in connection with the arrest and conviction for the offense for which he had been pardoned but the order shall not affect any index issued by the circuit court clerk before the entry of the order. All records sealed by the Department may be disseminated by the Department only as required by law or to the arresting authority, the State's Attorney, and the court upon a later arrest for the same or similar offense or for the purpose of sentencing for any subsequent felony. Upon conviction for any subsequent offense, the Department of Corrections shall have access to all sealed records of the Department pertaining to that individual. Upon entry of the order of expungement, the clerk of the circuit court shall promptly mail a copy of the order to the person who was pardoned." 20 ILCS 2630/5(c) (West 2004).

Put on notice of petitioner's petition, as required under subsection 5(d) of the Act, the Cook County State's Attorney objected, also pursuant to subsection 5(d). See 20 ILCS 2630/5(d) (West 2004) ("Notice of the petition for subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall be served upon the State's Attorney or prosecutor charged with the duty of prosecuting the offense, the Department of State Police, the arresting agency and the chief legal officer of the unit of local government affecting the arrest. Unless the State's Attorney or prosecutor, the Department of State Police, the arresting agency or such chief legal officer objects to the petition within 30 days from the date of the notice, the court shall enter an order granting or denying the petition"). In its initial objection, filed in the circuit court...