Nos. 2--06-- 1246 & 2--07--0093 cons. File d: 9-24-07

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f Win ne ba go Co un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 00-- CF--369 ) THOMA S J. POW

ERS, ) Ho no r ab le ) Ric ha r d W
. Vid al, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f Win ne ba go Co un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 00-- CF--370 ) THOMA S J. POW

ERS, ) Ho no r ab le ) J. Edward Pro chaska, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEMc LA

RE N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Fo llowing a j ury

tri al , de f en da nt, Thomas

Powe rs , wa s c onv

i cte d of one cou nt of attempt (aggravated

crim in al sex ual assaul t) ( 720 ILCS 5/8--4(a) ( We st 20 00 ) ) an d s en t en ce d t o 25 yea r s in pr ison. This co ur t affirmed t he co nvictio n in Pe o ple v. Powe rs , No. 2--01--0496 (2003) (unpubl is hed order under Suprem

e C ourt Rule 2 3) . D efenda nt t hen filed var iou s co llater al pet itio ns, includ ing peti tions f or postconv

i cti on rel i ef , f or reli ef f rom judgm

en t, and f or hab eas corpus .Nos. 2 --06- -1246 & 2-- 07--00 93 cons.

-2-

On October 16, 2004, t he trial court determi

ned that de fend ant's postconvi ction petition rais ed
a meri toriousconsti

tutiona l cl ai m an d w asnot fri volous. The court then

ap po int ed at t o rne y Da vid Br ownto represent def

endan t. On May

1, 2006, defenda

nt fi le d a pro se postcon

v i cti on peti ti on , alleging t ha t Br o wn ha d n o t co nsu lt ed wit h him o n his po st co nvic t io n c laims and r aising allega t ions of in eff ective assistance of tria

l a nd appel la te counsel. A

n i dentic al pet itio n, but bear ing Br ow n's signature, was f

il ed on Jul y 10, 2006. On

that same date, def

endan t file d several

more p ro se pleadi ngs, including a "Supplem ental Pro-se P ost Con

vi cti on P eti ti on, " w hi ch rai se d al l eg ati

ons of ineffect iveas sista

n ce of appe l l ate co unse l. The t rial co ur t or der ed t he St at e t o a nswe r t he allega t ions in the pet itions. The State f i l ed a m oti on to di sm i ss th e peti tion f i l ed b y Brown , whi ch

motion the tri al court deni ed on Septem

ber 13, 20 06. Howe

ver, the Sta

te f i l ed a m otion to recons i der, wh

i ch the c ourt granted on Novem

ber 21. On

Decem ber 6, Brown f

il ed a notice of appe al , and the court appo in ted t he office o f the State

A ppe l l ateDe f

en de r. Th at n oti ceof appe al has g i ve n r i se to appe al No. 2--06-- 1246. On

Dece mb er 7, de fen

dant fi le d a pro se motion to reconside r the Novemb er 21 order gr ant ingt he Stat e's m

ot ion to dismi

ss. In thi s m

ot ion, def endan t argued, among other thin gs, that Brown never

fo rmally answ ered th e S tate ' s m

oti on to dism i ss an d f ai l ed to i n cl ude v ari ous ex h i b i ts and aff ida vi ts with h is Jul y 10 fil ing o f the po st co nvictio n pet itio n. O n Dec ember 1 5, defend ant wrote
a le tt er to the ci

rcuit court clerk of W

in neb ago County, stating that the m ot ion to reconsi der

h ad to be he ard "p rior to" the notice of a p pe al . De f

en da nt a l so f i l ed a m oti on to w

i thd raw the noti ceof appeal pendi ng a decisi on on the motion to reco ns ide r. The trial

court deni

ed the moti on

toNos. 2 --06- -1246 & 2-- 07--00 93 cons.

-3-

wit hdr aw, co ncluding t hat defend ant "had n o author ity " to fil

e pro se ple adi

ngs, si nce counse l h

ad b een appoi n ted f or d ef en da n t, and t hat t he t rial co ur t had no jurisdi ction, si nce Brown h

ad al ready fi led a notice of appeal . Appeal No. 2-- 07--00 93 foll owed. We now consolidate the appeals. Defend ant no w c o nt en ds t ha t t he t r ial court erre d in denying his mot ion t o w ithd ra w t he Decem ber 6, 2006, notice of appe al that gave ris e to appeal No. 2--06-- 1246. We agree. Su pr em e C our t Ru l e 6 06 (b ) p rov

i de s i n pa rt: "Except asprov i de d i n R ule 6 04( d), the

noti ceof app eal must be filed wit h t he clerk of t he cir cu it co ur t wit hin30 da ys af ter the e ntry o f t he fina l jud gme nt ap pe ale d fr o m o r if a
m oti on dir ec t ed ag ain st t he jud gme nt is tim el y f il ed, withi n 30 day s af

ter t he en try of the order dispo sing of the m

ot ion. W hen a tim el y posttrial or po stsentenci

ng m ot ion di rected agains

t t he judgm

ent has b een f

il ed by counsel or by def endan t, if n ot represented by

counsel, a ny noticeof app ea l fi

led befo re t he ent ry o f the or der dispo sing o f all pending p os t judg ment
m oti ons shal l h ave n o eff ect an d s ha llbe stri cken b y the trial court . *** This

rule appl ie s whether the tim el y postj udgme

nt motion was

fi le d bef ore o r after

t he da t e o n which t he notice of a ppea l wasf i l ed." 210 Il

l . 2d R. 6 06(b ). T his ru l e a

pp l i es to appeal s i

nvol vi ng postconviction petitions. See People v . Domi nguez , 35 6 I ll. Ap p. 3d 87 2, 875- 76 (20 05). The S tat e argues t hat Rul e 606(b) does not apply in this si tuation because

defen dant was
r epresented

by cou ns el . Ru l e 6 06( b)sp ea ksonl y to pro se mot ions filed by a de fendant "no t represented

b y cou n se l ." The S tate

ar gu es t ha t "h ybr id" r ep r es en t at io n is not encouraged or allowed. In ge ne r al, a de fendant who is rep re sent ed bycounsel has n o author ity

to fi le pro se motions , and aNos. 2 --06- -1246 & 2-- 07--00 93 cons.

-4-

cour t shoul d not con sider s uch motion s. Pe o ple v. Se r io , 357 Ill . App. 3d 806, 815 (20 05)
. Howev er, an ex ce pti on to t his rule ex

is ts: represented defen

dants are al

lowed to raise pro se cla ims of ineffect iveas sis t an ce o f co un se l if t he y inclu de su pp o r t ing fac t s a nd sp ec ific clai m s. Se r io , 35 7 I ll. App. 3d at 815. Here, in his Decem

ber 7 pro se motion to reconside r, defen dant alle ged that Brow

n d i d n ot fo rmally answer the State's m

ot ion to dismi

ss an d fai le d to in cl ude various ex

h i b i ts a n d a f f i da v i ts w i th his Ju ly 1 0 f

iling o f t he po st co nvi ct io n p et it io n. Cle ar ly, the f ail ure to respond t o a mot ion to dismi ss that was ul

tim ately granted qualif ie s asa s pe cif i c c l ai m of un rea son ab l e a ss i sta

nc e of pos tcon vi cti on
co un se l. The f

ai lure to att ach

the ex hi bi ts a nd af f i da vi ts (w hi ch de f en da nt a ttac he d to h

i s m oti on to
r ec o nsid er ) is als o a s pe cific clai m of un reasonable assistance of post convicti on counsel. We m ust concl ude that defendan

t's pro se motion to reconside rwas a tim

el y a nd appropriate m

ot ion di rected agains t t he tri al cou rt' s d i sm i ss al of hi s p ostc onv

i cti on p eti ti on. Th us , th e f i l i ng of this motion n egated t he notice o f

appe al f i l ed on De cem b er 6. T h e tr i al cou rt erre d i n den y i n g def en da n t' s m oti on to wi thdra w the noti ce of appe al and f ail i ng to ad dres s de f endan t's m otion to recons i der. We no t e t ha t Su pr eme Court Rul e 309, which appl ie s to crimi

nal app eals, pr ovid es in re levant pa rt: "Be f

ore the rec ord on appeal is fi le d in the reviewi

ng court , t he trial court may dismi ss t he appeal

of any party (1) on m

oti on of that party or (2) o n sti pula tion of the parti es." 134 Ill . 2d R. 309. The Sta te points out, co rrectly , that Supreme Court Rule 309 i s not man dator y, i n that a c o ur t "ma y" dism iss an appeal . However, we conclude tha t any par t y, whe t her re pr ese nt ed bycounsel or not , hasNos. 2 --06- -1246 & 2-- 07--00 93 cons.

-5-

t he power t o withdraw an a ppeal by any me ans. This i s especi

ally true where, as here, un r ea so na ble
as sista nc e of pos tcon vi cti on c oun se l

i s p art of the de f en da nt' s c l ai m . The ri gh t to app eal , or

n ot to ap pe al, bel

ongs to t he def

en dant, no t his att orney. We cann ot conclude that a defendant must pr o ce ed wit h a n a pp ea l simp ly bec au se co un se l ha s a lre ad y filed a n o t ice o f ap pe al. For thes e rea sons , i

n a ppea l No. 2--07-- 0093, th

e j udgm en t of the ci rcui t court of Wi nne bago Cou n ty is reversed, and the cause i s rem anded f or fu rther proceed

i ngs . In light of o ur ru ling here in, appeal No. 2-- 06--1246 is prem ature. We therefore di sm is s appeal No. 2-- 06--1246. No. 2-- 06--1246, Appeal

dis mi ssed. No. 2-- 07--0093, Reversed and rem anded. HUTC HINSO

N an d CA LL UM, J J., con cur.