good morning orders made please the court counsel my name is marc fisher i represent behaviors petitioners in this case edward hemmings and vincent patterson mr henning's is serving a term with an extended term of twelve years in prison  enhanced portions of their sentences were void and with their sentence or should be reduced to nine extended terms for the arguing but if their sentences were so reduced but they would be entitled to immediate release from the illinois department of corrections petitions in the cases of bar were dismissed today ex parte hearings roughly about three weeks after the petitions were filed and it does not appear that the respondents make conscious decisions not to respond in fact two to look to certain provisions in the civil practice act which of course the hey be a square falls under the civil practice act one of those provisions being section two def six fifteen a day on which the second district a public  of of course the petitioners maintain that since this case obviously involves the illinois statute that it's up to bush court to construe the illinois state you know put into the citizens of the state but this court the law in its own interpretation of the sta submit that this reading of the statute recurring advance notice and allowing for leave to amend would honor both turned in one of the six certainly the respondents construction of tend to one of the six were also on or section two days six fifteen and a further petitioners submit that it would serve the goals of fundamental fairness and of justice and would seek to protect the important liberty interest which is at the heart of behavi corpus statute that being at liberty from on lawful confinement house only if if the court so merrily dismiss this edition what's to prevent the defendant from next week filing another time from a prison inmate if it's found that the inmate has filed a frivolous petition by its language that provision does include hippias corpus filings so for  adverse consequence although your honor is correct that say in contrast to the posting diction statute it does not appear that an individual would be barred from filing a success of state havey as corpus petition  petitions would also like to say another word about this court's decision in people versus influence and in vincent it stated that there were built in safeguards against the rooney as soon respond to the dismissal of a two for two no one petition one of the safeguards being the petitioners right to seek agree hearing and to possibly file an amended petition which might state a viable cause of action under section two dash fourteen zero one and the petitioner submit amended petition if in fact he's able to do so prior to the dismissal order furthermore since many if not most of these petitions are from individuals who have very little if any legal training but chances are that most of these individuals probably wouldn't even be aware of the possibility of seeking rehearing or file an amended petition certainly when the petition was dismissed the individual petition receives notification from the circuit court but notification typically advises the petitioner but the petition was dismissed time doesn't such a date and he now has thirty days in which to file a notice of appeal typically that notification from the  does not advise him of the opportunity to seek rehearing or to file an amended petition therefore again the petitioner submitted that it would serve the cause of justice and fundamental fairness in our so again seek to documents get in title without any thought of what the what the what the content is and that's certainly a problem that whether it's a fourteen a wonder whether it's a p c or whether it's a hey vs they kind of do get scrambled up  together in pro se pleadings and in in the hey be a situation we're simply trying to decide whether there's adequate and adequate claim to have to pursue the matter further  it giving him notice going to going to change that change what he's alleged in the first place he has some other factor he didn't decide to give the first time through or what i guess what i guess my real question is this how does this know the notice in the real world really give any significant number of defendants really and i think it really depends on the individual case as i say i think this procedure would allow the petitioner to file an amended petition where the petition are clear and in fact amend the petition to state a viable cause of action certainly as to many petitioners that is not going to be possible it's not going to be possible to file an amended petition bad will state a cause of action but i think in some cases that that possibility exists just as is it is it exists with respect to two fourteen zero one petitions or post conviction petitions a to the petitioner is if his petition is dismissed as frivolous he could suffer loss of good time in the department of corrections i suppose as well another put possible disadvantage is that the petitioner who files a new petition with you in a very short period of time matters first because it has been dismissed the judges is likely going to to be perhaps somewhat suspicious about another petition being filed by the same individual a short period of time and again i don't propose to this court that every petition that is is found to be inadequate will be able to be admitted to state a cause of action but to the extent that some petitions be amended to state a viable cause of action i think it's better to give the petitioner that ability that option dismissal rather than after dismissal and that's what the petitioners respectfully and article two the civil practice law because the specific provisions of just procedural provisions of article ten with control over the general procedural provisions in article two i'd like to begin by discussing procedure under article ten and then look at procedure under article two and then finally i'll explain why dismissal of these particular complaints was appropriate under either or both of those sections under article ten section one i was six provides for an initial review of corpus complaint and requires the court to dismiss it if it's clear that the plaintiff simply not going to be entitled to hate  and worse i'm not going to read the entire section to you but i'll paraphrase it basically says that unless it's clear from the complaint in the supporting documentation of the plaintiffs not entitle k b s corpus we the court shall order relief by  but is phrased in favor of a grant papers corpus but if it's clear that the plaintiff's not going to be able to stage a claim the court has to deny that order and dismissed petition you know where section one hundred six says award relief scorpius that doesn't mean that the court is declaring that the inmates detention is somehow unlawful or decreeing his freedom is simply a procedural device that initiated for sariel proceedings and requires the warden to file a return explained there is no our interpretation of the statute is there is no defense input at this initial review under section one hundred six there will not be a response of pleading none is called for at this point the warrants not called to file anything at all or response of return unless and until the petition clears that initial hurdle under section one o six and if relief is allow then hey b s order is directed to the custodian generally in these cases of course have been replaced by orders now but that the rich should never issue unless a petition is presented that's in substantial compliance with the statute and shows upon its face that the plaintiff's entitled to his discharge and this procedure is the same  sporting exhibits and determine whether it states a claim and if it does not it is clear from the petition on the sporting exhibits that he's not entitled to haiti's relief group or the rules governing section twenty two fifty four cases requires that the judge dismissed it at that point and responded warden is never called upon to respond to that petition similarly as brief this is the same procedure that applies in other states courts of other states h where the where the complaint is not substantial compliance with the statute and doesn't show planets face of the plane just entitled to just charge the judge has to dismiss and the orders not to issue absent the benefit responsive pleadings and without keeping the plaintiff it notice an opportunity to respond in advance of the judge some pending ruling this court held that no response of pleading was required a response of pleading was not required in a two fourteen  one action any more than it was in any other civil action instead what happens is the failure to file their response responsive pleading simply constitutes an admission of all the well pleaded facts in the complaint and the judge proceeds to denied access to the courts because he was able to file his petition and have a judge look at it and there are adequate procedural safeguards to guard against erroneous potentially erroneous to respond to a dismissal such a dismissal was improper under one of six dismissal would be proper under article t finally dismissal of mr pending and mr patterson's complaints was correct on the facts of this case because it was apparent applying these procedures they were not entitled to relief it's important here to keep in mind two hundred narrow remedy havey is corpus is it's not a substitute for direct appeal it's not if it's frequently used the remedy of last resort to be filed when the time has run for fine post conviction or two fourteen zero one actions at its core he b s about whether the court had the power to enter the judge or not whether that judgment was correct in section one twenty four of the hate vs corpus statute provides seven instances in which a plaintiff may be discharging the generally fall into two categories either the trial court lack personal or subject matter jurisdiction or some post convert conviction occurrence in titus the plaintiff to us media release mr henning's allege that the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction by sentencing him to a term in excess class sex offender he received a twelve year sentence which was within the range from six to thirty year sentence sceptical to class sex offenders and therefore that his sentence does not exceed the maximum t was based upon a statutory aggravating factor that was not in effect when he committed the murder in one thousand nine hundred one and he said that violated the ex post facto classes of both the state and the federal constitution but it was plain from the face of mr patterson's complaint that he too was not entirely hevia certainly because he had the alleged lack of jurisdiction and it was clear that the time during which he could be detained did not it's buyer because it was serving a life sentence instead mr patterson says claim alleging a constitutional violation was really sort of only on direct appeal or in a post conviction action and therefore the trial court probably dismissed  it if there are no further questions i conclude by saying that plaintiffs complaints simply fail to state a complain for a claim for haiti as corpus relief and then either under article ten or item to sponsor dismissal was appropriate certain about that i spoke with the record supervisor at shawnee correctional where he's currently incarcerated and it became clear during the course of our conversation his m s r term he had been inadvertently  been calculating his sentence based on a two year m s r term based on the fact that burglary is normally a two year class to felony they were they inform me that they would have to recalculate his release date so i do not know as of last night that they had not recalculate his release date i'd be happy to file something with the court when i become aware of his new release day about one of the specifics of these particular petitioners claims of course the issue before this court today is a procedural one and so the merits of these particular claims not particularly important of course even if this court finds that these petitioners claims were not meritorious and could not be amended to state viable causes of action of course this court's decision today is going to affect petitioners in the future who may well have a legitimate viable cause of actions to present that that's not the obvious and this court knows that i pass it on for what it's worth less is court has an ear for questions that would conclude agenda number three