Background
Jermaine Blake was convicted in 2001 of first-degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, and two counts of home invasion arising from a series of armed crimes in Danville. He received natural life imprisonment for murder and consecutive prison terms for the other offenses. The Fourth District affirmed his convictions on direct appeal.
Blake later pursued an initial postconviction proceeding based principally on affidavits from accomplice Tyree Jackson and Iriale Joplin. The circuit court dismissed the amended petition, and the Fourth District affirmed. In December 2024, Blake sought leave to file a successive postconviction petition, alleging that counsel in his initial postconviction proceedings provided unreasonable assistance, including by failing to file a certificate under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 651(c) and by omitting or reframing claims involving allegedly perjured testimony. The circuit court denied leave, finding that Blake had established neither cause nor prejudice.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed de novo. Because Blake did not assert actual innocence in his proposed successive proceeding, he was required to make a prima facie showing of both cause for failing to raise his claims during the initial postconviction proceeding and prejudice resulting from that failure.
Although Blake’s motion mentioned the cause-and-prejudice standard, it did not explain how either requirement was satisfied. The complete absence of a prima facie showing of cause or prejudice justified denying leave to file a successive petition. The court also granted the Office of the State Appellate Defender’s motion under Pennsylvania v. Finley to withdraw after independently reviewing the record, counsel’s memorandum, Blake’s response, and the prior appellate decisions and concluding that the appeal lacked merit.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant seeking leave to file a successive Illinois postconviction petition must make a prima facie showing of both cause and prejudice unless proceeding through an actual-innocence claim.
- Merely reciting the cause-and-prejudice standard does not satisfy the defendant’s burden; the motion must connect specific facts to each requirement.
- Blake’s allegations about prior postconviction counsel, including the failure to file a Rule 651(c) certificate, did not warrant further proceedings because his motion made no showing of cause or prejudice.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that leave to pursue a successive postconviction petition depends on the sufficiency of the defendant’s pleadings and supporting documentation. Claims concerning prior postconviction counsel do not bypass the statutory gatekeeping requirements.
The decision was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).