IN THE CIRCUIT CouRT FOR THE TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL CircuIT DEKALB COUNTY, ILLINOIS. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CASE NO. 11 CF 484 ILLINOIS, hi FILED JACK D, MeCULLOUGH, a inn 6 205 Defendant. Maureen A Jost Geko the Gucut Coun Deka Coup, tose ORDER Petitioner, Jack McCullough, seeks post-conviction relief from the judgment of conviction “entered against him on September 14, 2012. Following a bench trial, petitioner was found guilty of committing the offense of murder in violation of Chapter 38, Section 358, Subsection 1401957) ofthe Illinois Revised Statutes; kidnapping in violation of Chapter 38, Section 384, Subsection 166 (1957) of the Hlinois Revised Statutes; and abduction of an infant in violation Chapter 38, Section 385, Subsection 166% (1957) ofthe llinois Revised Statutes Petitioner was subsequently sentenced to natural life for the offense of murder, as well as 5 years for the offense of kidnapping and 7 years fo the offense of abduction of an infant. BACKGROUND Petitioner's conviction stems from hus arrest in 201 | for the December 3, 1957 disappearance and death of seven-year-old Maria Ridulph in Sycamore, Illinois, Page J of 3PROCEDURAL HISTORY A direct appeal was taken tothe Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, wherein petitioner contended he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; he was deprived of the right to Present a defense; whether other evidence was admissible; and thatthe convictions of kidnapping and abduction of an anfant must be vacated. On February 11, 2015, Petitioner's conviction of the offease of murder was affirmed, and the convictions of kidnapping and abduction of an infant were vacated. People v, Jack D’ MeCullough,201S IL App (2d) 121364, Petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Tinofs Supreme Court. However, his petition was denied on May 27, 2015. The record does not reflect whether petitioner sought further review in the United States Supreme Court. i ANALYSIS ‘The instant petition was filed on June 19, 2015 and is before the court for an initial determination of its legal sufficiency pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (the Act) 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1 (West 2012); People v. Holliday, 313 Il. App. 3d 1046, 1048 (Sth Dist. 2000) A post-conviction petition is a collateral attack on a prior conviction, People v, Summs, 192 Ill 2d 348, 359 (2000), and is limited to constitutional issues which were not and could not have been raised on direct appeal People v. King, 192 ill. 2d 189, 192-93 (2000). Where Petitioner raises non-meritorious claims, the court may summarily dismiss them. People v. Richardson, 189 IM. 2d 401, 408 (2000). Under the Act, Petitioner enjoys no entitlement toan evidentiary hearing, People v. Cloutier, 191 IM. 2d 392, 397 (2000). In order to obtain a heating, Petitioner has "to make a substantial showing of a violation of a constitutional right." People v Johnson, 191 Il. 2d 257, 268 (2000). However, a pro se post-conviction petition may be summarily dismissed as frivolous or patently Page 2 of 5‘without merit during the fis stage of post-conviction review unless the allegstions in the petition, taken as tue and liberally construed, present the “gist” ofa valid constitutional claim. People Edwards, 197 Ml, 24 239,244 (2001). A petition s frivolous and patently without merit where the Petition has no arguable basis in either law or fac; it is based onan indisputably meritless legal ‘heory ora fanciful factual allegation. People v. Hodges, 23424 1,23, 912 NLE.24 1204 (2000), Further, post-conviction proceedings are nota continuation of or an appeal from the original case. People v Flowers, 208 Il. 2d 291, 303, 802 N.E.2d 1174, 1181-82 (2003). Therefore, the issues raised on post-conviction review are limited to thse that could not be or were nt previously ‘aised on direct appeat or in prior post-conviction proceedings. People v McNeal, 194 Il. 2d 135, 140, 742 N.E.2d 269, 272 (2001), Petitioner filed his petition, entitled “Pro Se Post-Conviction Petition / Actual Innocence on June 19, 2015. Except for his own statement, no affidavits were attached to the Petition, however, Several exhibits were attached Concurrent with the filing of his Petition, the Petitioner also filed ‘Motion for Appointment ofthe Public Defender’s Office on Collateral Appeal, stating that he was not raising any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and ‘requesting the appointment of the Office ofthe DeKalb County Public Defender to represent him with respect to his post-conviction petition. ‘The Petitioner raises several issues in his Petition which relate to the charged offenses of kidnapping and abduction of an infant. Paragraph 6 a, b and g; and Argument I, Il, and VI of the Petition. As the Appellate Court vacated the convictions for those two offenses, these issues and ‘arguments are frivolous. Petitioner also asserts that his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated before the trial, as he was placed in close proximity of informants who could overhear conversations Page 3 of $Petitioner had with his spouse, attomeys, investigators or others, Paragraph 6 ¢ and Argument Ill of the Petition. Additionally, Petitioner claims that these informants also had access to outside ‘media reports about the Petitioner's case which gave the informants the ability to construct testimony against the Petitioner, A pro se petition must set forth some facts which can be corroborated and are objective in nature, or contain an explanation as to why those facts are absent. People v. Hodges, 234 1N.2d 1, 10 (2009), citing, People v Deion, 227 1.24 247, 254-55 (2008), mn the absence of any such facts, or an explanation as to why such factual information cannot be provided, the Petitioner's claim in this respect is without merit, Petitioner next claims that there is newly discovered evidence which was not known at the time of trial which would support his alibi. Paragraph 6 d and Argument LV of the Petition, This newly discovered evidence would be in the form of testimony from a witness who was not known tobe alive atthe time ofthe tial. Petitioner offers no reason as to why the existence of this witness ‘Was not known at the time of trial, Nor does he offer her affidavit in support of his petition, oreven a reason as to why her affidavit is not available. As Petitioner's claim and argument with respect to the newly discovered evidence lacks any factual corroboration or explanation as to the absence ofthe corroborative facts, this claim is without merit. See, People v. McCullough, 2015 IL App (2d) 121364 9416-119 Petitioner makes three additional claims in Paragraphs 6 ¢ and f of his Petition, as well as in Argument V. The first of these claims concerns the introduction into evidence of a limited Portion of the original police reports regarding the case. This was addressed by the Appellate Court inits decision Jd, at $$102-115. This claim is frivolous and without merit. Second, the Petitioner claims that allowing the testimony of a witness who never observed the abduction of the victim violated his constitutional rights. Although not specifically identified, Page 4 of 5it appears this would be Kathy Sigman, now known as Mary Chapman, who was playing with the victim immediately before her disappearance. Again, the Appellate Court addressed this issue in its decision. I. at §977-83. This issue is similarly frivolous and without merit, The third of these remaining issues is raised in Argument V, namely, that the Petitioner's conviction for murder was predicated on the convictions for kidnapping and abduction ofan infant which were vacated.. This argument lacks any support, and is frivolous and without merit. Finally, although the Petitioner alludes to a eleim of actual innocence in the title of his Petition and in the prefatory language, and such claim is not supported by any facts which may be corroborated or an explanation as to why such facts are unavailable, Accordingly, the Petitioner's assertion of actual innocence 1s frivolous and without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner's Post-conviction Petuion filed Jan 19, 2015 is found to be frivolous and without merit, and accordingly is dismissed. (- JUDGE Enter: September 16, 2015. Page 5 of 5