Background
Mario Hearring pleaded guilty in 2012 to two counts of aggravated kidnapping arising from the armed abduction of Jermaine Jordan and his two-year-old son. In exchange for his plea, Hearring received concurrent 23-year prison terms. He did not appeal, and his initial postconviction petition was dismissed at the second stage.
In 2019, Hearring sought leave to file a successive postconviction petition alleging actual innocence. He submitted affidavits from codefendants Ronnie Webster, David Hearring, and David Green asserting that he was not involved in the offenses or that they had not seen him commit a kidnapping or possess a firearm. The petition advanced to the second stage, where Hearring proceeded pro se solely on his actual-innocence claim. The circuit court granted the State’s motion to dismiss.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed. It held that the codefendants’ affidavits were not newly discovered evidence because all three codefendants had pleaded guilty and been sentenced months before Hearring entered his own guilty plea. Their privileges against self-incrimination generally ended when their convictions became final, and Hearring alleged no facts showing that any conviction remained nonfinal at the relevant time.
Hearring also failed to explain why he could not have obtained the codefendants’ evidence before pleading guilty. Webster’s statement that he had prepared an earlier affidavit in 2011 further undermined the assertion that the evidence had been unavailable. Because Hearring did not satisfy the threshold newly-discovered-evidence requirement, he could not make a substantial showing of actual innocence, and the court did not consider whether the affidavits were material, noncumulative, or conclusive.
Key Takeaways
- A successive actual-innocence petition requires newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable despite due diligence.
- A codefendant’s guilty plea generally waives the privilege against self-incrimination once the conviction becomes final.
- Hearring offered no nonspeculative basis to conclude that the codefendants’ convictions were nonfinal when he pleaded guilty.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an affidavit obtained years after conviction is not necessarily newly discovered evidence. A postconviction petitioner relying on a codefendant’s later statement must establish why the testimony was legally or practically unavailable earlier and show diligence in attempting to obtain it.
The order was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).