Case Title: People v. Bounds

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81040

State: illinois

Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Date: 1998-04-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
People v. Bounds, No. 81040 (4/16/98) 
 
               Docket No. 81040--Agenda 2--January 1998. 
        THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. FRANK 
                          BOUNDS, Appellant. 
                                                                      Filed April 16, 1998. 
 
          JUSTICE HEIPLE delivered the opinion of the court: 
          Defendant's conviction for murder and sentence of death were affirmed by 
        this court on direct appeal. People v. Bounds,  171 Ill. 2d 1  (1995). Defendant's 
        additional convictions of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated criminal sexual 
        assault were also affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for post- 
        conviction relief and later obtained leave to file an amended post-conviction 
        petition. The State moved to dismiss the post-conviction petition. At a scheduled 
        status hearing on March 28, 1996, with no amended post-conviction petition filed, 
        the circuit court granted the State's motion to dismiss. On April 26, 1996, 
        defendant filed both a motion for reconsideration and a notice of appeal. 
        Defendant's motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court on May 5. 
        We reverse and remand. 
 
                            ANALYSIS 
          Initially, we address, sua sponte, the jurisdiction of the trial court in the 
        instant case. Eastern v. Canty,  75 Ill. 2d 566 , 570 (1979). Although a direct 
        appeal is automatically perfected in capital cases, an appeal from the denial or 
        dismissal of a post-conviction petition is only perfected through the filing of a 
        notice of appeal. Furthermore, though post-conviction proceedings are civil in 
        nature, appeals therefrom shall be in accordance with the rules governing criminal 
        appeals. 134 Ill. 2d R. 651(d). In this case, defendant filed a notice of appeal 
        simultaneously with his motion for reconsideration. At oral argument, the 
        question was raised as to the jurisdictional impact the simultaneous filing would 
        have on this court s jurisdiction. 
          This court's holding in Daley v. Laurie,  106 Ill. 2d 33  (1985), is dispositive 
        of the issue. In Daley, the criminal defendant filed a motion for new trial on the 
        same day he filed a notice of appeal. The trial court granted the motion for new 
        trial, and we held that improper, stating that the jurisdiction of the appellate court 
        attaches upon the proper filing of a notice of appeal. When the notice of appeal 
        is filed, the appellate court's jurisdiction attaches instanter, and the cause is 
        beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court. Daley, 106 Ill. 2d  at 37. In the case at 
        bar defendant similarly filed a motion for reconsideration simultaneously with his 
        notice of appeal. Accordingly, the notice of appeal divested the circuit court of 
        jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction of this court attached instanter. 
          Turning to the merits of the dismissal of the post-conviction petition, 
        defendant asserts that the trial court denied him a full and fair opportunity to 
        present his claims in violation of his right to due process of law by dismissing 
        his post-conviction petition without proper notice and before he was able to 
        complete discovery. U.S. Const., amend. XIV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, secs. 2, 8. 
        Defendant s post-conviction counsel, Ronald Haze, filed a four-count petition for 
        post-conviction relief on June 30, 1995. Two weeks later, the court granted leave 
        to file an amended post-conviction petition by October 3, 1995. Haze requested 
        the time to amend the petition because both defendant s trial attorney and the 
        State had lost defendant s trial record. On September 20, 1995, the State filed a 
        motion to dismiss the post-conviction petition. The court continued the State s 
        motion to dismiss and granted a motion for discovery Haze had filed on 
        September 11. Haze thereafter subpoenaed records from the Chicago police 
        department. At the next court date, November 14, Haze requested a continuance 
        because the Chicago police department had not yet complied with the subpoena. 
        The court continued the case until December 6. On December 6 the State 
        announced that it had located defendant s trial record, which it turned over to the 
        defense along with a set of police reports. The following colloquy then ensued: 
               "Mr. Haze: Well, this isn't a tentative file, judge, what I would like 
                    to do, we can grant leave to file an amended complaint, I would like to 
                    read these over and follow-up such leads as there are in these materials, 
                    and perhaps we can come in, either for, we can get, let's see, to amend 
                    the complaint and do our investigation, I would estimate three months for 
                    either status or filing date, either way, if we need a little bit more time, 
                    we can come in just before the three months, but like at least, the three 
                    months. 
               The Court: No problem. Mr. Bounds isn't going anywhere, I'm going 
                    to be here so give me a date. 
               Mr. Corkell [assistant State's Attorney]: How about the 28th of 
                    March, judge? 
               Mr. Haze: Okay, at this point, be for the filing of the amended 
                    complaint, judge. 
               The Court: Status, you come on in and tell be what you have to do, 
                    that's all." 
          On March 28, Haze appeared in court with a new discovery motion and a 
        motion for an additional continuance. The court noted these two motions, but 
        without ruling on them granted the State s motion to dismiss the post-conviction 
        petition without argument. 
          Defendant contends that the trial court s ruling dismissing his post-conviction 
        petition without proper notice denied him due process of law. Specifically, 
        defendant asserts that he was entitled to rely on the court s order granting him the 
        right to file an amended petition and on the court s statement that the March 28 
        court date was for status. Defendant maintains that he had no notice that the court 
        would rule on the State s motion to dismiss on the status date, and that the trial 
        court s decision to do so was fundamentally unfair. 
          In the instant case, the trial court instructed the parties that the next court 
        date would be for status only. Defense counsel, in accordance with this 
        information, came prepared for a status call, only to be surprised when the trial 
        court, without prior notice, granted the State's motion to dismiss. A trial court's 
        discretion in resolving post-conviction petitions does not allow the court to 
        convert a status call to a hearing on the merits without notice to the parties. The 
        scheduled hearing in the case was for a status report only. There was no notice 
        to defendant's counsel that defendant's post-conviction petition would be ruled 
        upon. The procedure followed thus violated defendant's right to procedural due 
        process under the Illinois Constitution. Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, sec. 2. 
          Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the circuit court for further 
        proceedings. 
 
        Reversed and remanded.