{
  "id": 4280628,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GREGORY L. BOATMAN, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Boatman",
  "decision_date": "2008-11-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 4\u201408\u20140178",
  "first_page": "469",
  "last_page": "473",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "386 Ill. App. 3d 469"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "561 N.E.2d 326",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "327"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 Ill. App. 3d 374",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2580674
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "376"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/203/0374-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "879 N.E.2d 315",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "317-18"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 Ill. 2d 31",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5706193
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "35"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/227/0031-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "726 N.E.2d 1178",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1182"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 Ill. App. 3d 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        411691
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "345"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/312/0340-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 465,
    "char_count": 10213,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.835,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39348278606204456
    },
    "sha256": "2cb48ffdf106c0d4aee8939503a7becc44bead32fcf4f2bd1de149c770db2c36",
    "simhash": "1:b26ae5ac574d9533",
    "word_count": 1695
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:11.295177+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GREGORY L. BOATMAN, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE McCULLOUGH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Gregory L. Boatman, appeals the trial court\u2019s dismissal of his fourth motion for forensic testing filed pursuant to section 116 \u2014 3 of Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/116 \u2014 3 (West Supp. 2007)). We reverse.\nOn December 18, 1997, a jury found defendant, Gregory L. Boatman, guilty of attempt (first degree murder of a peace officer) (720 ILCS 5/8 \u2014 4(a) (West 1996)), two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 14(a)(1) (West 1996)), and unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle (625 ILCS 5/4 \u2014 103(a)(1) (West 1996)). On January 30, 1998, the trial court sentenced him to two consecutive 60-year prison sentences for the aggravated-criminal-sexual-assault convictions to be served concurrently with a 14-year prison sentence for unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle and 160 years for attempt. On direct appeal, defendant\u2019s attempt sentence was reduced to 60 years. People v. Boatman, 312 Ill. App. 3d 340, 345, 726 N.E.2d 1178, 1182 (2000).\nInitially, we note, this is the seventh time defendant\u2019s case has been before this court on appeal. The record shows he filed a direct appeal, appeals from denials of two postconviction petitions, an appeal from the denial of a motion to reduce his sentence, appeals from the denials of two previous motions for forensic testing, and this current appeal.\nAt defendant\u2019s trial, B.M. testified in connection with the aggravated-criminal-sexual-assault counts. She stated she entered a car being driven by a man she identified as defendant. She stated defendant sexually assaulted her while wearing a condom. After the assault, she and defendant cleaned themselves off with paper towels. B.M. reported the attack and was taken to the hospital where she was examined and a \u201crape kit analysis\u201d was performed.\nOn October 25, 1999, defendant filed a pro se motion for forensic testing not available at trial regarding actual innocence pursuant to section 116 \u2014 3 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/116 \u2014 3 (West 1998)). He requested deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing on paper towels that were taken into evidence and hair-sample analysis on exemplars taken from himself and B.M. On November 16, 1999, the State filed a motion to dismiss defendant\u2019s motion, arguing it was deficient on its face because it failed to contain the allegation that the technology for the requested testing was not available at the time of trial. On February 11, 2000, the trial court granted the State\u2019s motion, stating defendant was convicted in December 1997, and \u201cthe technology for the testing contemplated by section 116 \u2014 3 was available at the time of trial.\u201d\nOn June 9, 2001, defendant filed a second pro se motion for forensic testing pursuant to section 116 \u2014 3. He asked for DNA testing on his clothing and hair-sample analysis on exemplars taken from himself and B.M. On June 13, 2001, the trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion, finding it contained the same allegations as his first motion for forensic testing and its order denying the first motion was a final order. Defendant appealed the court\u2019s decision. On appeal, the office of the State Appellate Defender (OSAD) moved to withdraw as appellate counsel. This court granted OSAD\u2019s motion and affirmed the lower court\u2019s judgment, stating as follows:\n\u201cDNA testing and hair-sample analysis were available in 1997 when defendant was tried, and defendant had the opportunity to request those. He did not allege in his motion that a new type of testing was now available. Because defendant failed to allege that the testing technology he now requests was unavailable at the time of trial, the dismissal of defendant\u2019s motion was proper. [Citation.]\u201d People v. Boatman, No. 4 \u2014 01\u20140616, slip order at 4 (October 23, 2002) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).\nOn June 28, 2004, defendant filed a third pro se motion for forensic testing pursuant to section 116 \u2014 3. He requested testing on all of his and B.M.\u2019s clothing and \u201calso any certain hair sample[,] blood sample[,] whatevers [sic] at the [S]tate[\u2019]s request.\u201d On June 30, 2004, the State filed a motion to dismiss defendant\u2019s motion, noting his previous two motions and asserting DNA testing was readily available at the time of his trial. On July 20, 2004, the trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion. It noted he failed to allege the requested testing was unavailable at the time of his trial. Defendant appealed the court\u2019s decision. On appeal, OSAD again moved to withdraw as appellate counsel. This court allowed OSAD\u2019s motion to withdraw and affirmed the lower court\u2019s judgment, stating \u201c[defendant's third motion for forensic testing was facially insufficient, as were his first two.\u201d People v. Boatman, No. 4 \u2014 04\u20140755, slip order at 6 (February 21, 2006) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).\nOn December 13, 2006, defendant filed his fourth pro se motion for forensic testing pursuant to section 116 \u2014 3. He requested DNA \u201ctesting type (STR-PCR)\u201d of his and B.M.\u2019s clothing and the \u201crape kit,\u201d all of which he alleged were not subjected to forensic testing at the time of his trial. On January 12, 2007, the State filed a motion to dismiss defendant\u2019s motion, arguing he failed to allege the requested testing was unavailable at his trial and his motion is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. On January 28, 2008, the trial court determined defendant failed to state a claim for relief under section 116 \u2014 3 because he did not allege the requested testing was unavailable at the time of his trial. It granted the State\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nThis appeal followed.\nOn appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his fourth motion for forensic testing without first determining whether the requested testing technology was available at the time of his trial.\nSection 116 \u2014 3 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/116 \u2014 3 (West Supp. 2007)) permits a defendant to move for forensic testing of evidence \u201csecured in relation to the trial which resulted in his or her conviction.\u201d The defendant must present a prima facie case that identity was an issue at his or her trial and the evidence to be tested was subjected to a sufficient chain of custody. 725 ILCS 5/116 \u2014 3(b)(1), (b)(2) (West Supp. 2007). The trial court should grant a defendant\u2019s motion when the results of the testing would have \u201cthe scientific potential to produce new, noncumulative evidence materially relevant to the defendant\u2019s assertion of actual innocence\u201d even if they may not completely exonerate the defendant and \u201cthe testing requested employs a scientific method generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.\u201d 725 ILCS 5/116 \u2014 3(c)(1), (c)(2) (West Supp. 2007). The court\u2019s denial of a section 116 \u2014 3 motion for forensic testing is subject to de novo review. People v. O\u2019Connell, 227 Ill. 2d 31, 35, 879 N.E.2d 315, 317-18 (2007).\nIn between the time defendant filed his fourth motion for forensic testing in December 2006, and the time the trial court decided his motion in January 2008, section 116 \u2014 3 was amended. When defendant filed his motion, section 116 \u2014 3(a) provided as follows:\n\u201cA defendant may make a motion before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case for the performance of *** forensic DNA testing *** on evidence that was secured in relation to the trial which resulted in his or her conviction, but which was not subject to the testing which is now requested because the technology for the testing was not available at the time of trial.\u201d (Emphases added.) 725 ILCS 5/116 \u2014 3(a) (West 2006).\nSection 116 \u2014 3 was amended in Public Act 95 \u2014 688 (Pub. Act 95\u2014 688, eff. October 23, 2007 (amending 725 ILCS 5/116 \u2014 3 (West 2006))). It now provides as follows:\n\u201cA defendant may make a motion before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case for the performance of *** forensic DNA testing *** on evidence that was secured in relation to the trial which resulted in his or her conviction, and:\n(1) was not subject to the testing which is now requested at the time of trial; or\n(2) although previously subjected to testing, can be subjected to additional testing utilizing a method that was not scientifically available at the time of trial that provides a reasonable likelihood of more probative results.\u201d (Emphases added.) 725 ILCS 5/116\u2014 3(a) (West Supp. 2007).\nThe amended version of section 116 \u2014 3(a) was in effect at the time the trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion. \u201cIn the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, a court is to apply the law in effect at the time of its decision, unless to do so results in manifest injustice.\u201d People v. Hardin, 203 Ill. App. 3d 374, 376, 561 N.E.2d 326, 327 (1990).\nHere, defendant sought forensic testing of his and B.M.\u2019s clothing and the \u201crape kit.\u201d He alleged none of those items was previously subjected to forensic testing at the time of his trial. Following the October 2007 amendment to section 116 \u2014 3, it was sufficient for defendant to request forensic testing on evidence secured in relation to his trial and allege only that the evidence was not previously subject to the testing he was now requesting. It was not necessary for him to allege the testing was unavailable at the time of his trial unless he was seeking to subject the evidence to additional testing. Defendant\u2019s fourth motion for forensic testing was not insufficient for the reasons determined by the trial court or alleged by the State.\nAdditionally, given the intervening change in section 116 \u2014 3, defendant\u2019s motion for forensic testing is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.\nFor the reasons stated, we reverse the trial court\u2019s judgment.\nReversed.\nMYERSCOUGH and COOK, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE McCULLOUGH"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles M. Schiedel, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "Julia Rietz, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and Thomas R. Dodegge, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GREGORY L. BOATMAN, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4 \u2014 08\u20140178\nOpinion filed November 21, 2008.\nCharles M. Schiedel, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nJulia Rietz, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and Thomas R. Dodegge, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0469-01",
  "first_page_order": 487,
  "last_page_order": 491
}