People v. Washington

2020 IL App (1st) 163024

186 N.E.3d 1055

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Respondent-Appellee,

v.Wayne WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant.

No. 1-16-3024

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, FIRST DIVISION.

Filed June 28, 2021

Rehearing denied November 12, 2021

Steven A. Greenberg and Michael P. Hohenadel, of Steven A. Greenberg & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellee.

JUSTICE PIERCE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Petitioner, Wayne Washington, appeals from the denial of his petition for a certificate of innocence filed pursuant to section 2-702 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) ( 735 ILCS 5/2-702 (West 2016) ). Washington argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying his petition for a certificate of innocence because the court improperly imposed a procedural bar when it found that a petitioner, who pled guilty, could not receive a certification of innocence and because the trial court relied on improper evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm the circuit court's judgment.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Washington and codefendant Tyrone Hood¹ were convicted of the May 1993 armed robbery and murder of college basketball star Marshall Morgan, Jr. Washington had a jury trial where the jury failed to reach a verdict, resulting in a mistrial. Hood was convicted following a bench trial and was sentenced to 75 years’ imprisonment.² After Hood was convicted and sentenced, Washington entered a plea of guilty in exchange for a 25-year sentence.

¶ 4 On December 5, 2003, Washington filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus relief, which was denied on February 27, 2004. He subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief alleging actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence. On July 2, 2013, the petition was dismissed because Washington had served his sentence, had been released, and therefore had no standing to bring the petition.

¶ 5 Hood fought his conviction through a series of appeals and postconviction petitions. After a 2014 investigative article in The New Yorker , then Governor Quinn commuted Hood's sentence. The January 12, 2015, commutation order indicated that Governor Quinn was granting "commutation of sentence to time considered served leaving the mandatory supervised release period in effect."

¶ 6 Thereafter, on February 9, 2015, the State, on its own motion, moved to vacate Hood's and Washington's convictions, and grant them a new trial. The State then nol-prossed the charges against both Hood and Washington pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code. ( 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2014).

¶ 7 Subsequently, Washington promptly filed a petition for a certificate of innocence in the circuit court.

¶ 8 A. Washington's Petition

¶ 9 Washington's verified petition for a certificate of innocence was a two-page document to which he appended a prior section 2-1401 petition setting forth claims nearly identical to co-defendant Hood's. See People v. Hood , 2021 IL App (1st) 162964, ––– Ill.Dec. ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––. His petition stated that "he/she will establish by a preponderance of the evidence" that he was convicted of murder, he completed his sentence of imprisonment, that his conviction was vacated, and the indictment was dismissed, and he did not, ‘‘by [his] own conduct, voluntarily cause or bring about [his] conviction."

¶ 10 Pursuant to statute, the Illinois Attorney General was notified of the petition and did not intervene. The State's Attorney's office was also notified of the petition and appeared only for the purpose of advising the circuit court that it would not oppose Washington's petition. The circuit court initially denied the petition without a hearing. Petitioner moved for reconsideration. The circuit court struck its previous order and, at a joint hearing with Hood, allowed petitioners to present evidence in support of their petitions.

¶ 11 B. Washington's Evidence in Support of Petition

¶ 12 Washington adopted Hood's testimony. See Hood , 2021 IL App (1st) 162964, ––– Ill.Dec. ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––. He stated that he served 12 years’ imprisonment for Marshall Morgan's murder. Washington stated that he knew Hood from the neighborhood but denied being with Hood on the night of the murder. He had nothing to do with Marshall's murder. He was inside a neighborhood convenience store when detectives came into the store, handcuffed Hood and took him to a police car. A short time later, after viewing his identification, detectives asked Washington to come to the station to answer questions. Hood was still in the backseat of the car. Washington was "wrestled to the car" and handcuffed.

¶ 13 He was taken to a police station for a short time and then transported to the police station at 51st Street and Wentworth Avenue. Hood was in the car with him. Hood looked like he had been beaten up. Washington was taken to an interrogation room and was handcuffed to the chair. He sat there for several hours. Detective Boudreau came in, asked him about a murder, and told him that he and Hood were in a lot of trouble. Washington told Detective Boudreau that he did not know anything about a murder. Washington was "pushed around, slapped around. The chair was knocked over a few times, picked back up, knocked over again."

¶ 14 Washington ended up giving a statement to the police implicating himself. The police told him that if he said certain things, he could go home. Washington told his lawyer about what happened at the police station. His lawyer filed a motion to suppress but it was denied.

¶ 15 Washington testified that he pleaded guilty because he knew that Hood had been sentenced to 75 years’ imprisonment and that if he took the deal, he would be 32 years old when he came home and would still have ‘‘a chance at a life."

¶ 16 After a full hearing, the circuit court denied Washington's petition for a certificate of innocence. Washington timely filed his appeal.

¶ 17 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 18 We consider this matter on appellant's briefs only. The State did not participate in the proceedings in the circuit court and has not participated in either appeal.

¶ 19 Section 2-702(b) of the Code provides that

"[a]ny person convicted and subsequently imprisoned for one or more felonies by the State of Illinois which he or she did not commit may, under the conditions hereinafter provided, file a petition for certificate of innocence in the circuit court of the county in which the person was convicted. The petition shall request a certificate of innocence finding that the petitioner was innocent of all offenses for which he or she was incarcerated." 735 ILCS 5/2-702(b) (West 2016).

¶ 20 In order to obtain a certificate of innocence under section 2-702(g) of the Code, a petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:

"(1) the petitioner was convicted of one or more felonies by the State of Illinois and subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and has served all or any part of the sentence;

(2)(A) the judgment of conviction was reversed or vacated, and the indictment or information dismissed or, if a new trial was ordered, either the petitioner was found not guilty at the new trial or the petitioner was not retried and the indictment or information dismissed; ***;

(3) the petitioner is innocent of the offenses charged in the indictment or information ***; and

(4) the petitioner did not by his or her own conduct voluntarily cause or bring about his or her conviction." 735 ILCS 5/2-702(g) (West 2016). See also People v. Fields , 2011 IL App (1st) 100169, ¶ 13, 355 Ill.Dec. 429, 959 N.E.2d 1162.

¶ 21 "If the court finds that the petitioner is entitled to a judgment, it shall enter a certificate of innocence finding that the petitioner was innocent of all offenses for which he or she was incarcerated." 735 ILCS 5/2-702(h) (West 2016). A person who secures a certificate of innocence may file a petition in the state's Court of Claims seeking compensation. Rodriguez v. Cook County , 664 F. 3d 627, 630 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing 735 ILCS 5/2-702(a) (West 2008)); see also Betts v. United States , 10 F.3d 1278, 1283 (7th Cir. 1993) ("[a] certificate of innocence serves no purpose other than to permit its bearer to sue the government for damages").

¶ 22 In determining whether a petitioner has showed by a preponderance of the evidence that he is innocent of the charged offenses, the trial court must consider the materials attached to the petition in relation to the evidence presented at trial. Fields , 2011 IL App (1st) 100169, ¶ 19, 355 Ill.Dec. 429, 959 N.E.2d 1162. In a certificate of innocence hearing, the court may take judicial notice of prior sworn testimony or evidence admitted in the criminal proceedings related to the convictions that resulted in the alleged wrongful incarceration, if the petitioner was either represented by counsel at such prior proceedings or the right to counsel was knowingly waived. 735 ILCS 5/2-702(f) (West 2016). Whether or not a petitioner is entitled to a certificate of innocence is generally a question left to the sound discretion of the court. Rudy v. People , 2013 IL App (1st) 113449, ¶ 11, 368 Ill.Dec. 594, 984 N.E.2d 540. ‘‘An abuse of discretion occurs only where the trial court's decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable to the degree that no reasonable person would agree with it." People v. Rivera , 2013 IL 112467, ¶ 37, 369 Ill.Dec. 321, 986 N.E.2d 634. However, "[t]he interpretation of a statute is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. " Fields , 2011 IL App (1st) 100169, ¶ 18, 355 Ill.Dec. 429, 959 N.E.2d 1162.

¶ 23 The circuit court denied Washington's petition for a certificate of innocence because it found that Washington had failed to satisfy the fourth prong of section 2-702(g) "because, by his own conduct, he voluntarily brought about his own conviction by giving a statement to police and pleading guilty." The court dismissed Washington's claims of police coercion because Washington gave differing...