Docket No . 102707.



### IN THE SUPRE ME COURT OF THE STAT E OF ILLIN OIS

THE PEOPLE OF TH

E STATE OF I LLI NOI S, Appe llant, v. JOHN O’CONNELL, A

ppel le e.
Opinion filed November 29, 2007.

JUSTICE KIL

BRID E del

i vered the j udgm

en t of the court , wi th op inion. Chi ef Jus t ice T homas and Justice s Fre eman, Fitz ger ald, Gar man, Karmeier , a nd Bu rk e co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion.

OPINI ON

In at t empt ingto rais e an actual-in nocence claim, de fendant , Jo hn O’ Co nne ll, fi

le d a pro semoti on f

orDN A tes ti ng pur su an t to se cti on 116–3 of the Code of Cri

mi nal Procedure o f 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/116–3 (W es t 200 2)) . The c i rcu i t cou rt of Cook Cou nty de nied defen dant ’s motion. The appe ll ate cou rt reverse d t he tr ial cou rt ’s order de ny

i ng de f en da nt’ s m oti on for DNA t est ing

and r emande d t he
cause fo r furtherprocee di ngs . 365 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 87 2. Thi

s court al l owe d the Sta

te’ s p eti ti on f orl ea v e to ap pe al p ur su an t t o Su pr eme CourtRul e 315 (210 Ill. 2d R. 315 ). W e n ow vac atethe

j udg men t of t he appella

te court and af

fi rm the tri al

court ’s den

ia l of defendant’s pro se motion to all

ow DNA testing.-2- BACK GROUND De f en da n t, John O’ Connel

l, pl ed g ui lt y to three co unts of fi rst degree murder, two cou

n ts o f ag gr av ate d c ri m i n al sex ual as sa ul t, and
one count of armed robb ery. Prior t o accepting def end an t’s gui l ty ple a, the trial

court adm

onis hed de fe nd

an t tha t he ha d the ri gh t to a j ury t rial and t o p re sent a de fense. Defend ant to ld the tri al judge that he un de r st o o d h is r ig ht s b ut wis he d t o wa ive t he m an d p lea d g ui lt y. The sti pul ate d f ac tua l basis i nf orm ed the cou rt th at a t noon on Septembe r7, 199 0, defend ant ent ered a flow er sho p whe re t he 64- year- old victim wo rk ed. Defend ant sexu ally assault ed t he vic t im, beat her, s tabbed her in

the sto mach , sto le m

oney f rom the cash register, and fl

ed. Defen dant was later arrested near the scene. At t he t ime he wa s a rr es t ed , de fen da nt ha d b lo o d o n his und erwe ar, shir t , an d h an ds , an d mo ne y fro m t he flo wer sho p in his pants’ pocket. A bl

ood- covered kni

fe wa s found in defendant’s van. Latert hat same d ay, d efenda nt made a n inculpat or y sta t ement . T he vic t im suf fered s evere i

nj uries and, si x d

ay s l ate r, di ed

of compli cations. T he trial court admoni shed defen dant o f the possibl

e sentences, including t he po t ent ial deat h sent ence . D efenda nt tol d t he co ur t he st ill wanted to ple ad gui lty . The trial court accept ed de f

en da n t’s gui l ty ple a and sen ten ced def

end ant t o co ncu rr ent t er ms o f nat ur al life impr is onment f

or three coun ts of m urder, two exten

ded-ter m sentence s of 60 y

ears f or each count of aggravated cri mi nal sexu al
as sa ul t , an d 3 0 ye ar s’ imp r iso nme nt fo rar med r o bbe ry. Defend ant su

b se qu en tl y f i l ed a m oti on to reconsi der

the sentence but to ld t he t r ial c o ur t he did no t wa nt t o wit hd r aw his g uilt y ple a

. The t rial co ur t did no t re duc e de fendant ’s se nt ence , a nd de fendant appeal ed. The

appe l l ate court af

f i rmed. People v. O’Con n ell , No. 1–93–0 200 (1995 ) (un

pub l i shed order

und er Suprem e Court Ru

l e 23). Defe ndan t later fi le d a pro se po st co nvictio n pet itio n alleging his extended-term s entences

violated Apprendi v. New

Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d. 435, 120 S . Ct. 2348 ( 2000) . The tria l court dis mi ssed the p eti tion . The appe l l ate court

affi rmed the circu it cou rt ’s
sum mary dis mi ssal of def endan t’s postco nvi

ction petition, but order ed t he trial court to correct the

m i tti m usto ref l ec t a s i ng l e c onv i cti on f or-3- fi rst degre e m

urder. People

v. O’Conne ll , No. 1–01–0421 ( 2002) (un pub l i shed order

und er Suprem

e Court Ru

l e 23). Af ter his di rect ap pe al

an d pos tcon vi cti on pr oc eed ings, defend ant fi le d th e i n sta n t pro se m

oti on to al l ow D NA testi n g p ur suan

t to se cti on 116–3 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/1 16– 3 (W es t 200 2)) . Se cti

on 116–3 al lows a def

endan t t o make a

mot ion fo r finger pr into rfo r en sic t est ing“no t av aila ble at t he t ime of trial ” when “i dentity was the is sue in the tri al” res ul tin g i n de f endan t’s c onv i cti on. 725 ILCS 5/116

–3(a), (b) (W est 200 2). The trial cou rt d en i ed de f en da n t’s m oti on for DNA t est ing. T he trial co ur t r ea so ne d t ha t de fen da nt faile d t o es t ab lis h a prima facie
case f orDN A testi n g b ec au se

“ i den ti ty was not at issue at trial

” when defend ant pled g uilty. T he trial cou rt subsequent ly

denied defendant’s motion to reconside

r, and def endan t appealed. The app ellate co ur t re ver sed t he trial cou rt ’s denial

of defendant’s
moti on for DNA t est ing and r emand ed for further proceedi ngs. 365 I ll. A pp. 3d 8 72. The a

ppe l l atecou

rt h el d that s ec ti on 1 16–

3 doe s n ot al l owf or s um m ary dismissal of mo t ions fo r D NA t est ing. T he appe l l ate cou rt al so h el d th at a n y er ror was n ot ha rml

ess because counsel ma y h ave b een ab le

to argue persuasi

vel y tha t i den ti ty was at is sue at t rial , despite defendant’s gui lt y p lea

. T he St at e t imely appeal ed pursuant t o Sup reme Co ur t Rule 315 (210 Il l . 2d R. 3 15). We allo we d t he St at e’ s p et it io n fo rlea ve t o ap pe al.

AN AL YSIS The Stat e appeal s f

rom the j udgment o f t he appe l l ate court re ver sing t he t r ial c ourt ’s den ia l of defen dant’s m ot ion f or DNA t est ingpursuant to sect ion 116–3 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/1 16–3 (West 2002)). We review de novo t he t ria l co ur t ’s d enia l o f a m oti on f orDNA testi ng u nde r section 116–3

. Peo

pl e v. Brooks , 221 Ill . 2d 381 , 39 3 (2 006 ); People v. Shum , 207 Il l . 2d 47, 6 5 (200 3). T his ca se pr es en ts a n i ss ue of f i rs t i mp re ss i on

b ef oreth i s c our

t. We mus t deter mi ne wh ether, as a m

atter of law, section 116–3 al lows
a defen dant who pl eads gui

lty to ma ke a m ot ion f or DNA testing. Our
res ol ution o f t his c as e is a s t r aig htf or wa rd statutor

y con stru cti on of t he th re sh ol d r eq ui re men ts of se cti on 116–3. We be gin

with a review of secti on 116–3.-4- In199 8, t

h e l eg i sl atu reen ac ted se cti on 11 6– 3, o utl

i n i n g th e pro cess de f

en da n ts m us t f oll ow to obtain f

in gerprin t o r forensi

c DNA t est ingnot avai la

ble at tr ia l wh en actual i nnocen ce was at i ssue dur ing t r ial. 725 I LC S 5/116– 3 ( We st 20 00 )

. Se ct io n 1 16 –3 pr o vid es , in
re l ev an t pa rt:

“ Moti on f or f i ng erpri nt or f oren si c te sti ng not avai la ble at trial regardin g actual i nnocen ce. (a) A def endan t ma y make a motion be f ore the tri al court tha t en tere d the j udg

men t of con vi cti on i n h i s or he r ca se f or t he pe rf orm an ceof f i ng erpri nt or f oren si c DNA tes ti ng on evi dence t ha t wa s secured i

n relation to t he trial

whi ch resul ted in hi s or her co nvictio n, b ut w

h i ch wa s n ot s ub j ec t to t he testing wh

ic h is now re que st ed be cau se t he tec hn ol ogy f or the testing was

not avai la

ble at the tim

e of trial . *** (b) The def

enda nt m ust presen

t a prim a f acie case that: (1) ide ntity was the i ssue i

n the trial whi ch resul ted in his or her co nvictio n; and (2) The evi

dence to be tes ted

has b een s

ub j ec t to a ch ain of custody

sufficient to establ

is h that it has

not been substi tut ed, tam

pere d w i th , re place d, or alte re d in any
material asp ect.” 72 5 ILC S 5/11 6–3 (W est 200 2). T his co ur t has p re viou sly consid er ed s ect ion 1 16– 3 in t he co nt ext of a d efe nd an t ’s bu r de n t o o bt ain for ensic t est ing. I n People v. Savory , 197 Ill . 2d 203 (2001), we exami ned whether

evi dence a defend ant sought to test pursuant t o section 116 –3 was m at er ially
re levant t o his c laim of act ual innoc ence . I n Shum , 207 Ill . 2d 47, we
c o nsi dered whether a def

endan t made a prima facie

case unde

r se cti on 116–3 for DNA testin

g t o est abl

ish actual in nocence. Most
r ec en t ly, in Brooks , 2 21 Il l . 2d 381 , we considered wh ethe r a defend ant w as en

ti tled to po ly

me rase chai n reaction (PCR

) DNA t est ingwhen

the testing was

avai la ble a t t he time of the defendant’s t r ial. T ho se ca se s a ll

invo lve d a n a na lysis of

th e statu tory re qui re men ts fo rsec t ion 1 16– 3 t est ing follow ing a t rial and co nvictio n. Ana lysi s under that li

ne of cases i s i

rrelev ant to a case in

volv in g a gui lty ple a. Bef ore any anal ys is of the statuto ry requi

remen ts to al low DNA testing, the

i ni ti al i ss uei s th e a ppl i ca bi l i ty of t he st at ut e. The parties and th e l owe r c our ts di d n ot examine t he t hre sho ld re quir ement s. We-5- now con str ue th e te rm s of se cti on 11 6– 3 to dete

r min e whether defen dant s who enter guil

ty pleas m

ay ma ke a m ot ion f or DNA testing. “The pr imary rule o f sta t ut or y cons t ru ct ion is t o d et er mine and give eff ect to the in

tent of the legi

sl ature.” Burke v

. 12 Roth child ’s Liquor Mart, Inc. , 148 Ill . 2d 429, 441 (1 992 ). The statut ory language it se lf is the best i

ndicator o f l

egi sl ative i nt ent

. Burke , 148 Ill . 2d at 441-42. The pla in lan gu ag e o f se ct io n 1 16 –3 st at es t ha t t he mo t io n is in tended for perform

ance of “f in gerprin t o r forensi

c testing not available at trial re gar ding actual i

nnocen ce.” (Emph

asi s added.) 725 ILCS 5/116

–3 (W est 200 2). Thi s court

has r eco gnized t hat t he pla in la nguage of sub section (a) of s ection 116–3 requires a de f en da nt s how ( i) the ev i de nc e i n q ue sti on wasnot

subj ect t o t he requested t est at t he time of trial ; a

nd (ii ) th e e vi

de nc e w as

not subj ect t o t esting because t he re qu es te d test was unavai la ble at the time of defendant’ s trial

. Brooks , 22 1 I ll. 2 d a t 39 3. Th e p lain lan gu ag e o f subse ct ion ( b) furt her re quir es a defend ant present a prima facie case of i dentity at is sue at his trial

and the ev

ide nce to be tested hasbe en

und er a s ecure ch ai n of cus tody. 7 25 IL CS 5/1 16–3( b) (W est 200 2). A section 116–3 m

ot ion f or forensic testing is a legisl at ive ly created ri gh t. “ ‘W h er e a sta tu te l ists the things to which it refers, there is a n infe r en ce t ha t all o mi ssi ons shoul d be un derstoo d as
ex cl usi ons.’ ” Mattisv. State Universities Retirement Sys tem , 21 2 I ll. 2d 58, 78 (2 004), quot in

g Bridgestone/Fires tone, Inc. v. Aldridge , 179 Ill . 2d 141 , 15 1-5 2 (1 997 ). Se e al so Burke , 148 Ill . 2d at 442 (“ Wh erea statut e l is

ts the thin

gs to which

it ref ers, there i s a n in feren ce that all omissions sh ould be understo od as exclusions, des pit e t he lack of a ny

ne ga ti ve word s of lim itat ion”) . T he plain and
unam bi guous l an gua geof se ction 116–3 perm

its a m ot ion f or DNA t est ingonly

when a def

endant has been convicted following a trial
co nt es t ing id en t it y. Ac co r di ng ly, as a

matt er of law , d efenda nt s who ple ad gui lty ma y not av ail t hem sel

ves of section 116–3. Those def endan ts are a se pa ra te gr ou p who h av

e n ot co n tested i den ti ty at t r ial. Ac co r di ng ly, based on our statut ory construction, we concl ude the a ppel l ate court er r o ne o us ly

deter mi ned section 116–3 permits a defend ant who ple ads gui l ty to argue that ide nt it y wa s a t iss ue , de sp it e h is guil ty plea. 365 Ill . App. 3d at 877-78.-6- Nonetheless, defend ant argues that the purpose of section 116–3, to exo ner at e innoc ent defend ant s, is be st ser ved by allow ing de f en da n ts who ple ad gui lty

to seek DNA

testi n g. D ef en da n t su gg ests
an in div idua l m ay ple ad gui l ty to a c ri me, de sp i te hi s or her in

nocence, to obtain l

esser ch arge s or a reduced s en

tenc e. We are , however, const rain ed b y th e p l ai n l an gu ag e of th e statu

te. W e r ei

terate , a defend ant wh

o pleadsgui

l ty may not use section 116–3 as a mea n s to request DNA testing. On a f i n al poi n t, the a pp el l ate cou rt al so c on cl

ud ed th at se cti on 116–3 does not expressl

y provi de for sum

ma ry dism is sal of mo t ions f orDNA testin

g and that a def

endan t has a ri gh

t to n ot ic e and an opp ortu n i ty t o r esp ond befo re ru ling on t he mot ion. The t r ial c o ur t did
no t , ho we ve r , “s um mar ily” deny or d ism iss defen dant’s m ot ion. See People v. Vincent , 22 6 I l l . 2d

1, 1 1 ( 20 07 ) (th

e term “su m

mary dis miss al” is

uni qu e to t he Post -Conviction Hearin g Act (725 ILCS 5/122 –2.1 (West 20 04 ))) . Rath er , the tr i al cou rt su a sponte

deni ed defendant’s mo t io n fo r DN A test ing af

ter det ermin

ing that d efendant’s
moti on did n ot provide a l

egal basis f or t he reques t. “[A

] tri al court may, on i ts own m otion , di spose

of a matter [ sua sp onte ] w hen i t is cl ear *** that the requestin g party i s not entitl ed to r el ie f as a m atter of la w.” Vincent , 2 26 I ll. 2d a t 12. We hol d that the tri

al cou rt di d n ot err in sua sp onte

denying de fendant ’s mot ion fo r se ct ion 1 16– 3 t est ing when defendan t’s motion was insuf

fi cien t, as a ma tt er of l aw, because de fen da nt ple d g uilt y ra t he rt ha n p r o ce ed ing t o t r ial.

CONCLUSION We de t er mine t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t co rr ec t ly deni ed defendant ’s req ue st f or DN A tes ti ng asa m atte r of law. We fur t her co nclude t he appe l l ate cour t o ver l ooke d the p l ai n a nd unam bi guou s l an gua geof
se cti on 11 6– 3 in r ev er sing t he t r ial c o ur t ’s de nia l o f d efendant’s
moti on for DNA testin

g. We theref

ore vacate the j udg ment of t he appe l l ate court and af

fi rm the tri al

co urt ’s denial

of defendant’s section 116–3 m

ot ion f or DNA testing.
Appellate court judgment vacated; circuit court judgment affirmed.