People v. Peters

1

2024 IL App (2d) 230116-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SCOTT PETERS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2-23-0116

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Second District

April 23, 2024

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of McHenry County. No. 14-CF-939 Honorable Michael E. Coppedge, Judge, Presiding.

JUSTICE SCHOSTOK delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hutchinson and Birkett concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

SCHOSTOK, JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The trial court properly denied the defendant's petition for leave to file a successive postconviction petition and his petition for leave to file a second amended successive postconviction petition.

¶ 2 The defendant, Scott Peters, appeals pro se from the trial court's denial of his petitions for leave to file a successive postconviction petition and to file a second amended successive postconviction petition. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On November 6, 2014, the defendant was charged with six counts of attempted first-degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1), (b)(1), 8-4(a) (West 2014)) for shooting at three McHenry County deputy sheriffs. He was also charged with two counts of aggravated battery (id. § 12-3.05(e)(2)(i)) and five counts of aggravated discharge of a firearm (id. § 24-1.2(a)(3)).

¶ 5 Following a jury trial in 2015, the defendant was convicted of the attempted murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1), (b)(1), 8-4(a) (West 2014)) of the deputy sheriffs and was sentenced to a total of 135 years' imprisonment. On direct appeal, we affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence. See People v. Peters, 2018 IL App (2d) 150650. On July 14, 2017, while his direct appeal was pending, the defendant filed a petition under section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2016)), arguing that his conviction was the result of fraud misrepresentation, and suppression of evidence. On October 4 2017, the trial court dismissed the defendant's petition sua sponte in a written order. On appeal, we affirmed the dismissal. See People v. Peters, 2020 IL App (2d) 170857-U.

¶ 6 On June 8, 2020, the defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition under the Postconviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2018)), raising several claims of ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel, and alleging various violations of his constitutional rights. The trial court docketed the petition and advanced it to the second stage. The State filed a motion to dismiss the petition. The defendant moved to proceed pro se, and the trial court granted the motion. On June 7, 2021, following a hearing, the trial court entered a 12-page written order summarizing the defendant's postconviction claims and addressing their legal sufficiency. The trial court found that the issues raised in the defendant's postconviction petition did not warrant relief under the Act and thus granted the State's motion. On appeal, we affirmed the dismissal. See People v. Peters, 2022 IL App (2d) 210365-U.

¶ 7 On March 14 and July 6, 2022, the defendant filed petitions to hold the clerk of the circuit court in contempt for failing to provide him with relevant portions of this case's record in violation of court orders. On August 30, 2022, following a hearing, the trial court explained that the allegations were not sufficient to establish direct criminal contempt but appointed a special prosecutor to determine if the clerk of the court could be found in indirect criminal contempt. At a later hearing, the special prosecutor stated that, after an investigation, he determined that there was no basis to charge the clerk with indirect criminal contempt and dismissed the petition. The trial court explained to the defendant that it was required to accept the recommendation of the prosecutor.

¶ 8 On October 3, 2022, the defendant filed a petition for leave to file a successive postconviction petition under section 122-1(f) of the Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2020)), a memorandum of law in support, and the proposed successive petition with supporting exhibits. The defendant asserted a claim of actual innocence and argued that there was good cause for not raising his claims sooner, namely, that all those involved in his prosecution were guilty of misconduct by concealing relevant witnesses, evidence, and information. He asserted that this official misconduct was a violation of his right to equal protection and due process of law. He argued that facts in support of the official misconduct were not available to him at the time he filed his postconviction petition.

¶ 9 In support, the defendant attached 19 exhibits. The exhibits included various pro se letters, documents, and filings. For example, the first document was a 2018 pro se handwritten civil lawsuit with the defendant as the plaintiff and various McHenry County officials as the defendants, alleging that the officials were withholding relevant information related to his 2015 criminal conviction. There is no indication that this suit was actually filed.

¶ 10 The attached evidence also included material that referenced court cases involving Louis Bianchi, the McHenry County State's Attorney at the time of the defendant's prosecution. For example, the defendant included evidence of a 2012 case against Bianchi for retaliatory discharge by an employee that was terminated after he cooperated with an investigation of Bianchi's alleged misconduct in office. Chrzanowski v. Bianchi, 122 F.Supp.3d 755 (N.D. Ill. 2015). Another one of the exhibits showed that Bianchi had been charged with misconduct in managing the State's Attorney's Office, but he was acquitted on all charges in 2011. Bianchi v. McQueen, No. 12-cv-00364, 2014 WL 700628, at *3-4 (N.D. Ill. 2014).

¶ 11 There was also a September 2020 internal memo and newspaper article concerning the dismissal for cause of one of the assistant state's attorneys that prosecuted the defendant, Michael Combs. Combs was terminated from his position because he acted on behalf of an acquaintance to secure her release after she was picked up by McHenry County deputies on a Cook County warrant. The newspaper article referenced two other cases that Combs had prosecuted in his position as McHenry County assistant state's attorney. The defendant included excerpts from those two cases-Smith v. Brookhart, 996 F.3d 402, 408 (7th Cir. 2021) (underlying case People v. Smith, 2013 IL App (2d) 120508-U) and People v. Casciaro, 2015 IL App (2d) 131291.

¶ 12 In the Casciaro excerpt, a witness testified that another witness (Shane Lamb) had stated that his statements were the result of coaching by Combs. The witness acknowledged, however, that he did not believe that Combs had coached Lamb. Casciaro, 2015 IL App (2d) 131291, ¶ 68. In the Brookhart excerpt, a co-defendant-witness originally stated that Smith fired the gun that killed the victim but, on cross-examination, the witness recanted and averred that the State threatened to revoke his plea agreement if he did not lie under oath to convict Smith. Brookhart, 996 F.3d at 408. In both the Brookhart and Casciaro cases, the convictions were ultimately reversed. See Casciaro, 2015 IL App (2d) 131291, ¶ 116; Brookhart, 996 F.3d at 420. The defendant wrote notes on the case excerpts, indicating that they were examples of "case rigging."

¶ 13 On December 14, 2022, the trial court denied the defendant's petition for leave to file a successive postconviction petition. The trial court noted that the filing of a successive postconviction petition is only allowed when a defendant establishes cause and prejudice or states a claim of actual innocence. The trial court found that the defendant had not provided any supporting exhibits to show that the State participated in evidence fabrication, concealment, or manipulation in his case. Consequently, there was no evidence that the defendant's trial was improper, that he was denied due process, or any evidence that would change the result on retrial. The trial court concluded that the defendant failed to establish the prejudice necessary to warrant a successive postconviction petition and failed to support a claim of actual innocence.

¶ 14 On January 3, 2023, the defendant filed a motion to reconsider the denial of his petition for leave to file a successive postconviction petition. He later filed a motion to amend and supplement his petition and a petition for leave to file an amended successive postconviction petition. On February 22, 2023, a hearing was held on the defendant's motion for reconsideration. The trial court reserved ruling until it could hear argument on the defendant's petition for leave to file an amended successive postconviction petition. Thereafter, the defendant filed a petition for leave to file a second amended postconviction petition.

¶ 15 On March 15, 2023, at a hearing, the defendant moved to withdraw his petition for leave to file an amended successive postconviction petition and agreed that he was proceeding only on his petition for leave to file a second amended successive postconviction petition. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to withdraw and then heard argument on the defendant's petition for leave to file a second amended successive postconviction petition. Following the hearing, the trial court denied the motion to reconsider and the petition for leave to file a second amended successive postconviction petition. The defendant timely appealed from this order.

¶ 16 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 17 At the outset, we note that the defendant's pro se brief fails to comply with many of the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court...