Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division
from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 00 CR 18817
Honorable Arthur F. Hill, Jr., Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion. Justice Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.
1 Following a jury trial, defendant, Tyrone Mabrey, was
convicted of first degree murder in relation to the shooting
death of Manuel Jiminez and sentenced to 40 years in prison.
In this appeal, defendant challenges the summary dismissal of
his pro se postconviction petition in which he
asserted claims of actual innocence and that his confession
had been coerced.
2 Because the facts relating to defendant's trial are
relevant to our resolution of this appeal, we will recite
them below. Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to
suppress, and thereafter an amended motion to suppress, in
which he alleged that his videotaped confession, which was
taken after three days of interrogation, was the product of
police coercion. Defendant specifically stated that he had
not been informed of his constitutional rights prior to his
interviews with the police and that the officers had coerced
his confession by telling him "false statements to the
effect of 'you will never see your children again';
and 'we will help you make a self-defense statement to
present [sic] a conviction for first degree murder';
'you do not need a lawyer, you are not getting a
lawyer' and 'go along with the program' or
'you will never be released from custody.' "
Defendant's motion also alleged that the detectives
"coached" him "as to the content of the
statements that they wanted him to tell to the Assistant
State's Attorney, " and therefore, his statements
were involuntary and the introduction of them would violate
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
3 The trial court held a hearing on defendant's motion,
at which Detectives Adrian Garcia and Mark Richards and
Assistant State's Attorney (ASA) Scott Herbert testified.
The witnesses testified consistently that defendant was
informed of his Miranda rights prior to the
interviews, that defendant agreed to speak to them, and that
he provided a series of differing alibis as to his
whereabouts at the time of the shooting. After police
investigated those alibis and found evidence disproving them,
defendant confessed. The witnesses denied making the
statements that defendant had attributed to them or coaching
him as to what to say. They further testified that defendant
was fed and allowed to use the bathroom during the time he
was in custody. Defendant did not testify at the hearing and
presented no witnesses.
4 The trial court denied defendant's motion, finding that
the witnesses were "credible, they were logical, they
were internally consistent with each other, they were
unimpeached and the video statement also corroborates their
testimony." The trial court further found that defendant
"was properly advised of his rights, " "was
not denied any necessities, " "was not threatened
or coerced in any way, " and was not "refused an
5 Immediately thereafter, the court took up the State's
motion to introduce proof of other crimes. The State
specifically requested that it be allowed to introduce prior
convictions relating to defendant's sale of drugs at the
corner of Ohio and Springfield, where the murder occurred.
The State contended that proof of other crimes was relevant
as to defendant's identity, as it showed that defendant
frequented that corner, and as to motive, because it showed
that defendant had "a lucrative drug business that
need[ed] to be protected." Defense counsel initially
maintained that identification would be an issue in the case,
as the defense would be "alibi in the sense that he was
not there. Hopefully I'll be able to bring somebody in to
show where he was when it occurred, which is not going to be
the scene here." However, after speaking with defendant,
defense counsel retreated from that position, and stated,
"Let me correct myself, Judge. An identification is not
going to be an issue, Judge, it's not going to be an
alibi. The defendant will testify or evidence will show that
he was in the vicinity of that alley, he was there, but was
not the shooter." The court asked defense counsel,
"Let me understand, you're asking to strike the
alibi defense?" Defense counsel responded, "I am,
Judge." The trial court confirmed that defendant had
"talked to [his] Attorney about that" and asked if
that was "[defendant's] "request as well,
" and defendant responded, "Yes, sir." The
court then ruled, "Based on that then the People's
motion to introduce proof of other crimes is denied."
6 The following summary of the trial testimony and evidence
is taken from this court's December 1, 2003, Rule 23
order from defendant's direct appeal:
"At trial, Orlando Mastache testified that on July 3,
2000, he and his cousins, including Manuel Jiminez, and
several girls watched the fireworks show at the Chicago
lakefront. Later that evening, he and Jiminez drove to Ohio
and Springfield to buy cocaine.
When they arrived in that area, Mastache and Jiminez drove up
to three men near a car in the alley. Defendant walked up to
the passenger side of the vehicle, where Jiminez was sitting,
and said that he provided "24 hour service." He
then showed Mastache and Jiminez some rock cocaine in a small
plastic bag. Mastache took the bag and bit into the substance
to verify that it was cocaine. As a police car approached,
defendant grabbed the small bag of cocaine and returned to
the car which he had previously been standing near.
Mastache and Jiminez drove away from the area, and upon their
return, saw defendant talking to someone in a different
vehicle. After that vehicle left, defendant walked up to
Mastache's car and told Jiminez to get out.
After Jiminez did so, defendant walked over to a tree and
picked up something from the ground. Jiminez and defendant
were talking about six feet away, but Mastache could not hear
what they were saying. Defendant then extended his right arm
and shot Jiminez in the stomach. Mastache heard Jiminez yell
and saw him fall back into the bushes. Defendant ran away and
Mastache drove Jiminez to the hospital.
There, Mastache spoke to detectives and gave them a
description of the shooter. On July 5, 2000, Mastache viewed
a police lineup and identified [Todd Hill, ] one of the men
he saw in the alley with defendant when Jiminez was shot.
Later the same day, Mastache viewed a second lineup and
identified defendant as the shooter.
Detective William Fiedler testified that on July 4, 2000, he
and his partner, Detective Mark Richards, were assigned to
investigate the shooting of Jiminez. About 9:30 a.m., the
detectives went to the area of Springfield and Ohio to locate
possible witnesses. After interviewing Andrew Jones, the
detectives attempted to locate a white Pontiac Sunbird
The following morning, Detective Fiedler observed a white
Pontiac Sunbird proceeding across an intersection directly in
front of him and drove his police vehicle behind it. The
driver sped away and Detective Fiedler pursued this car for
several blocks. When it stopped, a man, later identified as
Todd Hill, ran from the car holding a handgun in his right
hand. The detectives apprehended Hill and recovered the
handgun Hill threw under a porch stairwell. At the station,
Hill provided the officers with defendant's name as a
suspect in the shooting of Jiminez.
Detective Adrian Garcia testified that on July 4, 2000, he
was assigned to investigate the shooting of Jiminez. Acting
on an anonymous tip received the following day, Detective
Garcia and other detectives went to an apartment at 1633 West
Madison and arrested defendant inside.
About 7:30 p.m., Detectives Garcia and Matteas interviewed
defendant at the police station. Detective Garcia advised
defendant of his Miranda rights and defendant agreed
to answer his questions. Defendant stated that on July 4,
2000, he and a woman named Robin Hayes drove to the area of
Ohio and Springfield to purchase marijuana. While purchasing
the marijuana, defendant saw a "Mexican" person
nearby. As defendant was driving away from the area, he heard
a gunshot. Defendant also provided an address and phone
number for Hayes and the detectives subsequently interviewed
In his second interview with defendant, Detective Garcia
informed defendant that Hayes said she was not with him on
the date in question. Defendant then stated that he was not
in the area of Ohio and Springfield, but had heard that a
"Mexican" person was shot there because the two
men, Loco and Bollo, who sell drugs in that area, thought
that he was "going to rip off the spot."
On July 6, 2000, Detective Garcia interviewed defendant a
third time, and advised him of his Miranda rights.
Defendant stated that on the date in question, he and a woman
named Latrice, also known as Pamela Williams, drove to Ohio
and Springfield to purchase marijuana. Defendant got out of
his car and saw several people, including a
"Mexican" man, in line to make a purchase. After
defendant bought his marijuana, he walked back to his car and
heard a gunshot. When he looked back, defendant saw the
"Mexican" man stumbling. Defendant then drove to
Williams' home and stayed there until about 4 a.m.,
before proceeding to 1633 West Madison to spend the night.
On the following day, July 7, 2000, Detective Garcia
interviewed Williams, then spoke with defendant a fourth
time. Detective Garcia informed defendant that Williams had
told them that she was not with defendant on the date in
Detective Mark Richards testified that he advised defendant
of his Miranda rights and interviewed defendant on
July 8, 2000. Following this interview, Detective Richards
called the State's Attorney's office and about two
hours later, he and Assistant State's Attorney (ASA)
Scott Herbert interviewed defendant. ASA Herbert advised
defendant of his Miranda rights and defendant
indicated that he was willing to answer their questions.
In the interview that followed, defendant stated that on July
4, 2000, he was selling narcotics in an alley near Ohio and
Springfield when two "Mexicans" drove up in a car
to make a purchase. Defendant gave one of the men some
narcotics and the man bit off a piece of the rock to
determine in the substance was as represented. Defendant had
noticed that these men had a baseball bat in their car. When
a police vehicle approached, the two "Mexicans"
drove away, but returned shortly thereafter to purchase
drugs. At that time, defendant retrieved more drugs and a gun
hidden nearby, then walked down the alley with Jiminez.
Defendant sold Jiminez two rocks of cocaine and Jiminez bit
off a piece of the cocaine and began chewing on it. Jiminez
began rocking back and forth on his feet with a crazed look,
and defendant thought about the baseball bat he had seen in
the car. He then pulled out the gun and it went off.
Defendant provided a similar version of events in a
Doctor Mitra Kalelkar, a Cook County medical examiner,
testified that she examined Jiminez's body and determined
that the cause of death was a gunshot wound to his left upper
abdomen. She found a muzzle imprint around the wound and the
skin blackened from powder and soot deposits which indicated
that the barrel of the gun was in contact with Jiminez's
body when it was fired.
The State rested its case and the court denied
defendant's motion for a directed verdict. Defense
counsel recalled Detective Fiedler, who testified that
Mastache had told him that Jiminez and the shooter were about
20 to 40 feet east of his vehicle.
Detective Gayle Maurovich testified that on the morning of
July 4, 2000, she interviewed Mastache at the hospital.
Mastache stated that he was about 40 to 50 feet away when
Jiminez was shot. Detective Maurovich viewed Mastache's
vehicle, which contained a baseball bat, stereo unit, a
steering wheel lock device and a bottle of beer. Detective
Maurovich also examined the area where Jiminez was shot and
determined that the closest street light was ...