THIRD DIVISION Decem ber 12, 2007
No. 1-05- 0523 THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE OF IL LINO IS, ) Appeal from the ) Ci

rcu i t Cou rt of Pl ai ntif f -Ap pel l ee, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) No. 93CR4683 ) TOMMY THOMPSON, ) T he Ho no r ab le ) Cl ay

to n J. Cran

e, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g.

JU STI CEGR

EIM A N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Defend ant To mmy

Tho mpso n was co nvicte d o f thr ee c ou nt s o f fi rst deg re e mur der and two co unts of arm

ed robbery . Af

ter pursuing a di

rect appeal (see Peop l e v . Th om ps on , No. 1- 95- 4424 (March 12, 1998) (unpubl is hed order under Suprem

e Court Rule 23)), fi

li ng two postco nvi ction petitions pursuant to t he Post-Convi ction Heari ng Act (t he A

ct) (725 ILCS 5/122- 1 et seq . ( West 199 8) ), bot h of w hich wer e dismissed by the t rial co ur t , a nd ap pea ling the dis mi ssal of one of h

is postco nvi

ction petitions (see Peop l e v . Th om ps on , 331 Ill . App. 3d 948 ( 20 02 ) ) , de fen da nt filed a p et it io n fo rr elie f pu r su an t t o se ct io n 2
- 14 01 o f t he Co de o f Civ il Proc ed ure (th e C ode ) (7 35 I LC S 5/ 2-1 401 (Wes t 200 4)) . The tri al cou rt dism i ss ed hi s p eti ti on sua sp on te . On appeal , defen

dant contended that the trial court erred in

“sum ma ril y di sm is si ng” hi s secti on 2-1401 petition af ter recharacterizi

ng i t as a petition f

il ed pursuant to t he A

ct without not ify ing him of its int ent t o r echa ra ct er ize t he pe t itio n, w ar ning him that subs equ ent postcon v i cti on peti ti on s woul

d b e s ub j ect to s uc ce ss i

v e- peti ti on re str i cti on s or prov i di n g h i m wi th
an o pp o r t un it y t o ame nd o rwit hd r aw t he pe t it io n a s r eq ui r ed by Peop l e v . Sh el l strom , 216 Ill . 2d1-05-0523

2

45 (2005), and Peop l e v . Pe ars on , 216 Ill . 2d 58 (2005). Alternativ el y, def endan t contended that the tri al court did not h

av e statutory

authority to “sum mari l y di sm i ss” his se cti on 2-1 401 pe

titi on. In Peop l e v . Th

om ps on , 36 8 Il

l . A pp. 3d 3 48 ( 200 6) w e f

oun d that the tri

al cou rt di d n ot
re char act er ize his sec t ion 2 -1 401 pet itio n as a pet itio n fil ed u nder t he Act and, acc or dingly, t he ho lding s o f Shel

l strom and Pea rs trom were no t ap plicable. Mor eover , we fou nd that tr ial cou rt ’s

“ su m mary di sm i ss al ” of de f en da nt’ s p eti ti on, thou gh i m prop er, am

oun ted to ha rm l es s error because the cl ai ms rais ed i n the peti tion were wi

thout me rit. Thereaf

ter, t he suprem

e court denied de f en da n t’s peti ti on f or l ea v e to a pp ea l , but pur suan

t to i ts s up er v i sor y au th ori ty , di re cte d u s to
vaca t e o ur judg ment a nd r eco nsider t his case in li ght of it s re cent dec ision in Peo ple v. Vincent , 226 Il l . 2d 1 (2 007). Peop l e v . Th om ps on , N o. 103 706 (S ept ember 2 6, 200 7) . Aft er vaca t ing
o ur o rig inal o pinio n an d r ec o nsid er ing in lig ht o f Vincent , we f i nd tha t a di f f ere nt resul t i s n ot
warra nted and aga i n af f i rm the j udgm

en t. Foll owing a j ury trial , on July 14, 1995 , defendant was convicted of three co unts of fi rst deg re e mur der and t wo co unt s o f armed ro bber y in connec t ion wit h t he sho ot ing dea t h of a t axi dr iver. Defend ant was sent ence d t o e xt ende d t er ms of 70 years ’ impriso nment fo r e ach o f the murder counts to be served cons ecutivel y w ith ex tended terms of 35 y

ears’ i mprisonm ent for each of the robbery

counts. On direct appeal, we vacated defen dant’s conv

ictions of two of the m

urder
co un t s a nd o ne o f t he r o bbe ry co un t s. We fu r t he rva ca t ed de fe nd an t ’s se nt en ce fo rr o bbe ry, i m posi ng a term of 3 0 y ears ’ i m pri sonm en t in i ts li eu. Th ere af ter, i n D ec em be r 19 98 a nd Septem be r 19 99, de f

en da nt f i l ed two pro se po st co nvictio n pet itio ns pu rsu ant t o t he Act . T he first alleged var iou s claims of ineffect ive1-05-0523

3

assist ance of t rial and app ellate co unse l. The sec ond ra ised a ddit ional claims o f ineffective
as sista nc e, c l ai m s th at he w asdeni

ed hi s ri gh t to a spe ed

y tri al an d c l ai m s th at he w asdepri

ve d of hi s righ t t o a fai r trial by the in tro duction of i

nf la mm ator y e vi dence. Both petiti ons were di sm is sed
and def endan t appea l ed th e di sm

i ssa l of the se cond . On

appe al , def

endan t conten ded, inter al

ia , t hat his e xt end ed and co nse cu t ive s ent enc es vio lat ed t he c o nst it ut io nal ma nda t es o f Appr endi v. New Jersey

, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). We ackn owledged that the is sue was wai

ved b ecause i

t had not been rai sed i

n def endan t’s postco nvi

ction petition but ch ose to ad dr es s i t n on eth el es s. W e f oun d th at “ Apprendi cla ims a r e n o t co gn iza ble t o un t imel y, successive post conviction pet itions,” like defendant’s, and ac cor dingl y hel d t hat de fendant’s Apprendi chal l engeswere

not cogn izab l e to the ap

peal
. Thom

ps on , 331 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 961. On No vember 1 8, 200 4, defend ant fil ed a sec t ion 2 -1 401 pet itio n for re lief f ro m judgment alle gin g that his extended an

d consecutiv

e sentenc es vi

olated Apprendi

and Blake ly v. W ashi ng ton , 542 U .S. 296, 1 59 L. E d. 2d 40 3, 124 S . Ct. 2531 (2004 ). The t rial co ur t dismissed d efenda nt ’s pe t itio n sua sp on te in an order fi

le d on January

21, 2005. In its order, the court observed that def endan t had requested reli

ef pursua nt to section 2- 1401 of the Code and rev ie wed the purpose and operation of that provis ion. The court noted that fi nal judgm ent in defen dant’s case

had b een ren

dered on Jul

y 17, 1995, an

d that his petition was f i l ed more th an ni ne yea rs l ater on Novem be r 18 , 20 04. Th e c ourt f

oun d that, purs

ua nt to s ec ti on 2-1401(c) of the Code, whic h provided that a petition f or reli ef coul

d not be fi

le d la ter t han two years af ter an en try of f i na l j udgm en t, def endan t’s s ection 2-1 401 pe

titi on wa s un

tim el y . Accordin gly , the court dis

mi ssed the peti

tion. The court cited People v . Schrader , 353 Ill . App.1-05-0523

4

3d 684 (2 004), in

further fi ndi ng that, timel

in ess aside, t he petition should b e dism issed b ecause ne i ther Apprendi

nor Bla ke ly

appl i es re troacti ve l y to coll ateral procee di ngs . A l so o n Ja n ua ry 21 , 20 05 , the tr

i al cou rt s i m pl y sta ted i n cou rt th at def en da n t’s “ [p ]os tconvi ction petition is

deni ed. Defen

dant to be pro vi

ded wi th a copy of the order.” On ap pea l, de fendant first co nt ends t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in faili ng t o a dmo nish him

and af f ord h i m an oppor tun i ty to am en d or wi thd raw hi s p eti ti on p urs ua nt to Shel l strom and Pea rs on wh en i t re ch aracter ize d h i s s ecti on 2- 14 01 peti

ti on as a p ost con

v i cti on peti ti on f i l ed pu rsua n t to the A ct. The

State cou nte rs tha t the tri al cou rt’ s w ri tten orde r m akescl ea r th at i t did n ot rech aracterize de f

endan t’s pe titi on. While de fen da nt is c o rr ec t t ha t , in c as es o f co nfu sio n, a c o ur t ’s o r al p r o no un ce men t will contro l ove

r its wri tt en pronouncem

ent (see People v . Savage , 361 Il l . Ap p. 3d 75 0, 762 ( 2005) ), in this case, there i s no conf

usi on. On the contrary, the court clearl y di d not recharacterize defen dant’s section 2-1401 petition as a postco nvi

ction petition fi

le d pursuant to t he A

ct. Here, th e c our t’s wri tten ord er cl ea rl y ackn owl ed ge d th at def en da n t’s peti ti on wa s f i l ed pu rsua n t to
sec t ion 2 -1 401 of t he Co de. The co ur t explo re d t he o per at ion and pur po se o f tha t pr ovisio n and
ex pli ci tly di sm i sse d the peti tion on the ba si s of unti mel i ne ss u nde r sub section

2-140 1(c). In our vi ew, defen

dant pla ces too muc

h wei ght on the court ’s oral s

tatement that defend ant ’s “[p ]o st -c onvict ion p et itio n is denied .” While the p hra se “p os t -c onvict ion p et itio n”
may con note a p eti ti on f i l ed pursuan t to the A ct, a se cti on 2 -14 01 p eti

ti on i s a l so a pos tcon vi cti on pet ition in

that it is a petition for relief fi led after a d efendant’s co nvi ction. In li

ght o f the cou rt ’s written order, in wh

ic h i t very cl early did n ot recharacterize defe

ndan t’s section 2-1401 peti

tion as1-05-0523

5

a po st co nvictio n pet itio n fil ed p ur sua nt t o t he Act , w e find it c lear t hat t he co ur t did no t intend the mea ni ng tha t de f en da nt a ttem ptsto atta ch

to i ts ora l sta tem en t. Be ca us e the c ourt d

i d n ot
re cha ra ct er ize de fend ant ’s p et it io n, it wa s no t bo und by t he r eq uir eme nt s o f Shel l strom and Pea rs on . Ha v i n g f oun d th at th e c our t di d n ot re ch aracter ize de f en da n t’s peti ti on , w e tu

rn n ow to hi s alternative contention that t he trial court was not stat uto ril y authorized to “sum

mari ly dism iss” his se cti on 2-1 401 pe

titi on. T he su pr eme co ur t add re ssed t he sp lit in aut hor ity in the app ellate co ur t co ncer ning t he pr op riet y of “summary dismissals” of se ct ion 2 -1 401 pet itio ns in Vincent . Pr ior t o t he cou rt ’s hold ing in Vincent , th e F ourth Di stri ct had he l d that tri

al cou rts m ay su m mari l y di sm i ss a s ec ti on 2-140 1 peti

tion i f i t is f ri vol ous an d wi thout m eri t (see, e.g. , People v . Ry

bur n , 362 Ill . App. 3d 870 , 87 7 (2 005 ); Pe opl

e v . B ra m l ett , 3 47 I ll. App. 3d 4 68, 471 (2 004 )) , w hile the S eco nd and Thi rd Districts hel

d that a tr ia

l c ourt comm

its reversi ble error in sum

ma ril y di sm is si ng a section 2- 1401 petition wi

thout giv in g the petitione

r notice and a

n opport uni

ty to respond and, furtherm ore, that a h arm l ess error an al y si s i s n ot appli cab l e (se e, e.g. , People v . Colem an , 358 Ill . App. 3d 106 3, 1 066 -71 (3d Dist. 200 5); Pe o ple v. Me sc all , 34 7 I l l . A pp . 3d 99 5, 1 00 0- 01 (2 d D i st. 20 04 )). Th

i s d i str i ct, on th e oth er h an d, h ad h el d th at, wh i l e th e tr i al cou rt i s n ot au th ori ze d to
sum ma ril y di sm is s a secti on 2-1401 petition, a h arml ess error anal

ys is should be appl

ie d to such di sm i ssa l s (se e, e.g. , People v . Alle n , 36 6 Ill. App. 3d 9 03, 907 -08 (20 06) ; People v. Dychess , 355 Ill. App. 3d 2 25, 227 -29 (20 05) ; Peop l e v . A nd ers on , 352 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 93 4, 939- 48 (20 04); Schrader , 353 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 686-88)
.1-05-0523

6

In Vincent , t he su pr eme co ur t clarified t hat pet itio ns bro ught unde r se ct ion 2 -1 401 of t he Co de a re civil pro cee dings a nd t hat t he t er m “summary dismissal,” bo rr ow ed fr om t he Act , ha s no appl i cab i l i ty to ci vi l procee di ngs be caus e “ [i ]n c i

vi l practi ce, there is n

o such thi ng as a ‘ sum

mary dis mi ssal .’ ” Vincent , 226 Ill . 2d at 6. Accordingl y, wh en the trial

court dis mi sses a s ection 2- 1401 petition b ased on the def ic ie ncy of the al le gations raised on the f

ace of the peti

tion wi thout
rec ei vi ng res pon si ve pleadi ng s f rom the State or provi di ng noti ceto the de f en da nt, i t doe s “ not
ru l e i n ‘s um mar y ’ f ash i on ; ra th er , the [ cou

rt] e n ter [s ] j udgm

en t sua sp on

te by deny i ng rel i ef on the petition.” Vincent , 22 6 I ll. 2 d a t 11
. T he co ur t no t ed t ha t t he rule s o f civ il pr o ce du r e p er mit trial court s to deny

section 2-1401 p etitions sua sp on te “ ‘w he r e t he cla imant ca nno t po ss ibly win reli ef.’ ” Vincent , 226 Ill . 2d at 13, quo ting Oma r v. Sea-Land Serv

ic e, Inc. , 813 F. 2d 986, 991 (9 th Cir. 1987). We review a trial court’s sua sp on te deni al of a def endan t’s section 2-1401 pet itio n de novo . Vincent , 226 Ill . 2d at 14. Keeping these pr inci

ples in mi nd, we find that the t rial court pro perly denied defendant ’s
se ct io n 2
- 14 01 pe t it io n be ca us e t he cla ims a lleg ed t he r ein ar e c o mple t ely w it ho ut mer it
. I n his petition, def

endan t alleged that hi s extended a nd consecuti

ve sen tences vi olate Apprendi

and Bla ke ly . I n Apprendi, t he Su pr eme Co ur t held t hat , “o t her t han t he fact of a pr ior co nvictio n, a ny fact t hat increa ses t he pe nalty fo r a cr ime beyond t he pr esc ribed st at ut or y maxim um must be subm itted to a j ury an

d proved bey

ond a reasonabl

e doubt.” Wei

dner v. Cowan , 361 Ill . App. 3d 664 , 6 65 ( 200 5) . I n Bla ke ly , the Su prem e Court f urthe r he l d tha t the rel ev an t “sta tutory
maxi m um ” f or Apprendi

purposes is

the ma xi mum a j udge m

ay im pose without any

addi tional f i n di n gsra th er th an th e m ax i m um h e m ay i m pos e af ter f i n di n g addi ti on al f acts n ot s ub m i tted to1-05-0523

7

the j ury . Howev

er, our su pr em e c our t h as h el d th at Apprendi

doe s n ot ap pl y re troacti v el y to
cas es on coll ateral revi ew, such

as def endan t’s. People v . De La Paz , 204 Il l . 2d 426 , 439 (2 003). Addit ionally, in this c ase , a s in Wei dner , de f en da n t “fa ils t o ex pl ain ad eq ua t ely w hy Bla ke ly , wh i ch i s s i m pl y an appl i ca ti on of Apprendi, is n

ot bound by

the De La Paz

h ol di n g th at Apprendi

is not given retroac ti ve ef f ec t. ** * [D ef

en da nt’ s] sente

nc i ng ch al l en gei s i nd i sti ng ui sh ab l e f rom
an Apprendi

chal l enge com

plai ni ng a bout the i m posi tion of a n exten ded-ter m sentence without the facts n

ecessary to permi t such sen tence hav in g been proven to a j ury b ey

ond a reasonabl

e doubt.” Wei

dner , 361 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 666. We agree wi

th the Wei

dner cou rt th at De La Paz

control s here a

nd, th eref ore, Bla ke ly

doe s n ot appl y retroac ti ve l y to ca se s on

col l ateral rev i ew . Se e al so Schrader , 353 Ill . App. 3d at 696 (“ [a ]b se nt any bind ing a ut ho rit y co mpe lling t he r et ro ac t ive a pp licat io n o f Bla ke ly to ca se s on coll ateral revi ew, petitioner’ s request that t hi s court do so here i s decl in ed. Thi s concl

usi on takes into co nsider at ion o ur sup re me co ur t ’s r uling, u nder analo go us c ircu msta nces , in De La Paz , whe re t he c o ur t re

jec t ed t he r et ro ac t ive a pp licat io n o f Apprendi ”). Ac cordi ngl y , we f i nd th at the tri al court correctly

den i ed de f endan t’s pe titi on an d af f i rm the j udgm en t. Af fi rmed. THEIS, J ., and K

AR NEZIS , J., con

cur..