FIFTH DIVISION FEBRUA RY 8, 2008

1-06-0302 THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE OF IL LINO IS, Pl ai ntif f -Ap pel l ee,
v. WIL LIE B AL LE, Def endan t-App el l an t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appe al fro m the Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Co o k C o un t y. No. 87 CR 18009 Ho no r ab le Clay ton J. Crane, Judge Presidin

g.

JU STI CETU LL

Y del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: On October 3, 2005, defen dant fi le d a second postconviction petition in whi ch h e alle ged (1) tha t hi s tri al cou ns el wa s i ne f f ec ti ve f or f ai l i ng to obta i n r ec ords f rom the ps y ch i atri c u ni t of the Coo k Count y j ail, which would have support ed an in sani ty defense and a request for a fi tness hea ring ; ( 2) t hat , in vio lat io n o f Bra dy v. Ma ryland373 U.S. 83, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215, 83 S. Ct. 1194 ( 19 63 ) , t he St at e fa iled t o t ur n o ve rde fen da nt 's me nt al h ea lt h r ec o r ds fr o m t he Co o k C o un t y jail; and ( 3) t hat his nat ur al lif e se nt ence is void be cau se he was not eligible to be se nt ence d pu rsu ant to the Habi

tual Cri mi nal Act (720 ILCS 5/33B-1 et seq . (We st 2002 )). The ci rcui t court dism i ss ed de f en da n t' s p eti ti on , c on cl

udi n g th at def en da n t' s s ec on d p ost con

v i cti on peti ti on f ai l ed to sati sf y the c aus e-an

d-prejudice test. See 72 5 ILC S 5/12 2-1(f ) (We st 2004 ). We o r igin ally a ffirmed t he dis miss al o f de fen da nt 's p o st co nvic t io n p et it io n, bu t va ca t ed his sent ence and r emande d t o t he circ uit co ur t for a new sent encing he ar ing. S ubse que nt ly, the Il l i n oi s S up re me C our

t ex ercise d i ts s up er v i sor y au th ori ty an d di re cte d th i s c our t to re con si der i ts1-06-0302

2

jud gme nt in light o f People v . Cardenas , 209 Ill . App. 3d 217 (1991), and Pe o ple v. Sims , 16 6 I ll. Ap p. 3d 28 9 (198 7) (225 Il l . 2d 640 (2007 )). FA

CTS Foll owing a jury trial , defen

dant was convi

cted of one count of aggravated crim in al sexual assault and one count o f arm ed ro bbery . Pursu ant to the Habitual Cri mi nal Act (720 I LCS 5/33B-1 et seq . (West 2002)), t he ci rcuit court det ermi

ned that defe

ndan t was a habi

tual cri mi nal and sen tenced hi m to a term of n

atural l if e. Defen dant fi le d a di rect appeal wi

th this court and we af f i rmed de f endan t's c onv i cti on an d senten ce on Novem ber 29, 19 93. Pe o ple v. Ba lle , 25 6 I ll. Ap p. 3d 96 3 (199 3). On May 29, 200 3, def

endan t fi l ed a p eti tion f or hab eas corpus . I n his pet itio n, d efenda nt
asse rt ed t hat t he circ uit co ur t lacke d jur isdict ion t o impo se a nat ur al lif e se nt ence unde r t he Habit ual Cr imi

nal Act base d o n guilt y pleas d efenda nt made in 19 76 a nd 19 81 a nd de fendant
ass erted that he

never was

adv i sed that the se p l eas

could lead to harsh

er pen al tie s f or fu ture
conv i cti ons. Th

e ci rcui t court determ

i ne d tha t, rather th

an a peti tion f or hab eas corpus , defend ant 's pe t itio n sho uld be r echa ra ct er ized a s a p os t co nvictio n pet itio n. Aft er re char act er izing defen dant's peti tion as a postconvi

ction petition, the circui

t cour t dism

is sed the petition as fr ivo lo us an d p at en t ly wit ho ut mer it
. On De ce mbe r10 , 20 04 , t his c o ur t affir med t he cir cu it court's di sm i ssa l of def endan t's p ostconv

i cti on petiti

on. Pe o ple v. Ba lle , No. 1- 03-2411 (2004) (un pub l i shed order

und er Suprem

e Court Ru

l e 23). On October 3, 2005, defen dant fi le d a second postconviction petition, which h e l abel ed "S uc ce s[ s] o rPo st - Co nvic t io n P et it io n S ee kin g R elie f. " I n t his p et it io n, de fen da nt alle ge d t ha t his1-06-0302

3

trial counsel was i nef fecti ve f or faili ng to o btain

records regarding def

endan t's pretrial in carceration i

n the psy chi atric uni t o f the C ook Co unty j ai l, wh ic h would h ave supported an i ns an i ty d ef en se or a r

eque st f or a f i tnes s heari

ng. D ef endan t al so al l eged that, by f ail i ng to turn
ove r his ment al healt h re co rd s fro m the C oo k Co unt y jail , t he St at e failed t o c omp ly with Bra dy v. Mar yland , 373 U.S. 83, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963). Af ter confi rmi ng that defen dant's peti tion was a s econd postconviction petition, the ci rcuit court det ermi

ned that def endan t fa i l ed to meet the

caus e-an d-prejudice test. See 72 5 ILC S 5/12 2-1(f ) (We st 2004 ). Fo llo win g t he cir cu it co ur t 's d ismis sa l o f his s ec o nd po st co nvic t io n p et it io n, de fen da nt filed t his ap pe al. DISCUSSION Defe ndan t's fi rst argument on appeal

is that t he ci

rcuit court err ed when

it determi

ned that the pe ti ti on h e f i l ed on O ctob er 3 , 20 05, wh

i ch he l ab el ed "S uc ce s[ s] or Post-Con

vi cti on P eti ti on Se ek i n g R el i ef ," wa s h i s s ec on d p ost con

v i cti on peti ti on . Sp ec i f

i ca l l y , de f en da n t as se rtsth at, pur sua nt t o o ur sup re me co ur t 's de cision in Pe o ple v. Sh ells t r o m, 216 Ill. 2d 45 ( 200 5) , t he pos tcon vi cti on p eti ti on h e f i l ed i n th i s c as e shou

l d b e c ons i dered

hi s f i rs t pos tcon

vi cti on p eti ti on and, theref

ore, t he ci rcuit court err ed when

it appl ie d the "cause-an

d-prejudi ce" test rather t han the "gi st of a constitutional cl ai m" test. We disagree. The Act contem

plates the f

i l i ng of onl y one p ostconv

i cti on petiti

on. People v . Fl ores , 153 Ill. 2d 264 (1 992 ). A defend ant may fi le a sec ond po st co nvictio n pet itio n only if he rec eives leave of c ourt. Flores , 1 53 I ll. 2d a t 273 -7 4. The circu it co ur t may grant suc h leave o nly i f the defendan t can satisfy

the cause-and-pr ejudi

ce test ; that is, the defendant must demonstrate c ause1-06-0302

4

f or h i s f ai l ur e to b ri n g th e c l ai m i n h i s i n i ti al postcon v i cti on proce ed i n g a n d m us t demon strate prejudi ce i n that the cl ai

m n ot rais ed i n hi s i ni tial postco nvi

ction petiti

on proceedin

gs so in fected t he t ria l t hat t he r es ult ing c o nvict io n o r s ent enc e vio lat ed du e p ro ce ss . 7 25 IL CS 5/ 12 2- 1( f) (We st 2004 ). In Shel l strom , the defen

dant fi le d a pro se documen

t entitled," 'Motion to Reduce Sen ten ce , Al tern ati ve l y , Peti ti on f or W ri t of Ma nd am usto Order S trict C om

pl i an cewi th T erm s of Guil ty Plea.' " Shel

l strom , 216 Il l . 2d at 48 . The

ci rcui t court, sua s

pon te , r echa ra ct er ized t he ple adi ng as a f irst postconvi ction petition under the Post-Convic tion Heari ng Act "Act" (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq . (We st 2002 )), an d sum mari l y di sm i sse d i t. Shel l strom , 216 Il l . 2d at 49 . In vacati ng the ci rcuit court's order, our supreme court fi rst reaff irm ed the well-se

tt le d prin ci ple that where a pro se pleadi

ng a l l eges a depri va tion of c onsti tution al ri ghts cogn izab l e un der the Act, a ci rcui t court ma

y treat the p l eadi

ng as a p ostconv

i cti on petiti

on, ev en wh ere l ab eled di f f eren tly
. Shel l strom , 216 Il l . 2d at 53 n1. Th

e court f ound, h owev er, tha

t bef ore a ci rcui t court
re char act er izes a d efenda nt 's plea ding as a first po st co nvictio n pet itio n, t he de fendant must be gi ven n otice
. Shel

l strom , 216 Ill . 2d at 57. S peci fi cally , our supreme court st ated: "P ur su an t t o o ur su pe rviso ry au t ho r it y, w e h o ld t ha t , in t he fut ur e, wh en a c irc uit co ur t is recharacterizin

g a fi rst post convi

ction petition a pl eadi

ng that a pro se li

tigant has label

ed as a diff erent action cogni

zabl e under Il li nois la w, the circui

t cour t must (1) notify

the pro
se li tigant that the court in

tends to recharacterize the pleadi ng, (2) warn the l

iti gant that th i s rech aracter

iza ti on mea n s th at a n y su b se qu en t postcon v i cti on peti ti on wi l l b e s ub j ect to the restrictions

on successi

ve postconviction petitions, and (3) provide the li tigant an1-06-0302

5

o pp o r t un it y t o wit hd r aw t he ple ad ing o rt o ame nd it so t ha t it co nt ain s a ll t he cla ims app ro pr iate t o a po st co nvictio n pet itio n t hat t he litigant believes he o r she has. If t he
cou rt f ai l s to do so, th

e p l eadi ng ca nn ot be consi dered to ha ve be com e a pos tcon vi cti on plead ing for pur po ses o f app lyi ng t o lat er plead ings t he Act 's re st rict ions o n suc ces sive post convicti on pet itions." Shel l strom , 216 Ill . 2d at 57. Because the ci

rcuit court fai le d to giv

e the def endan t all three of these adm

onis hm ents, our suprem e court vacated t he ci

rc ui t court's j udgm en t and rem anded the ca

use wi th i nstructi ons. Shel l strom , 216 Ill . 2d at 57-58. Here , on Ma

y 29, 200 3, def

endan t fi l ed h i s petiti on f or hab eas corpus , whi ch

the c ourt
r ec ha r ac t er ize d a s a po st co nvic t io n p et it io n. Ov er t wo yea r s la t er , o n Ju ly 21 , 20 05 , o ur su pr eme court deci ded Sh ells t r o m, 21 6 I l l . 2d 45 . D ef en da n t as se rtsth at Shel

l strom sho uld ap ply
re t ro act ively to his case and, beca use he did no t re ceive t he ad monishment s re quir ed by Shel l strom , t he Ma y 29, 200 3, po st co nvictio n pet itio n sho uld be d isreg ar ded and t he postconv i cti on petiti

on i n th i s ca se s houl d be treated a s if

i t was h i s f i rst postcon

vi cti on petiti

on. Con tra ry to de f en da n t' s a rgum en t th at Shel

l strom sho uld ap ply ret ro act ively, this co ur t 's re cent dec ision in People v . Spea rs , 37 1 I ll. A pp . 3d 10 00 , 10 06 ( 20 07 ) , co nfir med t ha t o ur su pr eme
co ur t in Shel

l strom "inte nded its ho lding t o a pply pr os pec t ively." The re for e, we r eject defend ant 's
con ten ti on th at Shel l strom shoul d app l

y retroacti ve l y to hi s Ma

y 29, 200 3, peti

tion f or hab eas corpus , w hich the circu it co ur t re char act er ized a s a p os t co nvictio n pet itio n. Sin ce Shel l strom does not apply

retro activel

y to defen dant's cas e ( see Peopl

e v . Spea rs , 37 1 I ll. A pp . 3d
. 10 00 ( 20 07 ) ) , de fen da nt 's O ct o be r3, 20 05 , po st co nvic t io n p et it io n w as his1-06-0302

6

sec ond po st co nvictio n pet itio n. T her efo re , in o rd er t o r ece ive leave o f co ur t t o file t his pet itio n, def endan t mu st satisf

y the c aus e-an

d-prejudice test. See 72 5 ILC S 5/12 2-1(f ) (We st 2004 ). Pu rsua n t to the c au se -a

n d- pr ej udi ce

test, the def

en da n t m us t sh ow " ca us e" f or f ai l i n g to rai se the i ssue i

n a prior proceed

i ng a nd " prej udice" resu

l tin g f rom th e cl ai med err or. Peo ple v. Sm i th , 3 52 I ll. App. 3d 1 095 (2 004 ). 'Cau se' is de fined as a n objec t ive fact or ext er nal to t he def en se that i m pede d def en se c ouns el's

attem pts to rai se the cl

ai m i n a n e arl i er proce edi

ng." Peop l e v . Le as on , 352 Ill . App. 3d 450, 453 (2004). 'Prejudice' is def in ed as an e rror so in fectious to the tr ial

pro ceeding that the resulting convi ction violates due pr ocess." Le as on , 352 Ill . App. 3d at 453. In thi s case, def

endan t has f ai le d to show "cause" for fa il in g to rais e i

n an earli er proceedin g hi s clai ms of i nef fecti ve ass is tance of counsel

, which i ncl uded cl ai ms regardin g trial
cou n se l ' s f ai l ur e to o b tai

n h i s m en tal h ea l th re cordsan

d tri al cou n se l ' s f ai l ur e to a rgue an i n sa n i ty defens e o r r equ est a fitne ss hea ring. Fur t her mor e, defend ant has failed t o s how "ca use " for faili ng to rais e i n an earli er proceeding h

is cl ai ms that t he State fai

le d to turn over defen

dant's m ental he alt h r ec o r ds , wh ich de fen da nt as se r t s a mo un t ed t o a v io lat io n o f t he Un it ed St at es Su pr eme Co ur t 's d ec isio n in Brady , 373 U.S. 83, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215, 83 S. Ct. 1194. I ndeed, def endan t has of f ered n o pl au si b l e ex pl an ati on as to wh y h e f ai l ed to rai se th es e iss ue s e i th er on di re ct a pp ea l to thi s court or i

n h i s Ma y 29, 200 3, peti

tion f or hab eas corpus , whi ch

the c i rcui t court recharacteriz ed as a postconviction petition. Sin ce def endan t has f ai le d to dem

onstrate "cause" for his def

aul t, we need not address the "prej udic e" elem ent of the cause-an

d-prejudi ce test. See Le as on , 3 52 I ll. App. 3d a t 455 (w hen a " defend ant is unable t o e st ablish cau se fo r his de fault [, he1-06-0302

7

or sh e] f ail s to sati sf

y the re qui rem en ts of th e ca use and prejudice test"). De f en da nt' s f i na l arg um en t on a ppe al i s th at h i s l i f e s en ten cei s v oi d s i nc e h e w asnot eligi ble to be sentenced pursuan t t o t he Hab itual

Crim in al Act. 720 ILCS 5/33B-1 et seq . (West 2002). Specif

ic ally , defen dant asserts that devi ate sexual assaul t, for which

defen dant was
co nvic t ed in 1 97 6 a nd wh ich se rve d a s a ba sis fo rt he cir cu it co ur t 's d et er minat io n t ha t he sho uld be se nt ence d as a habit ual cr imi nal, w as no t a co nvictio n t hat co uld be c ons ider ed u nder t he appl i cab l e v ersi

on of the H ab i tual Cri m i na l Act. "A sentence that do es not co nf orm to a stat uto ry requirem ent is void" ( Peo ple v. Arna , 168 Ill. 2d 107 , 1 13 ( 199 5) ) a nd "[c]hal le nges to void j udgme

nts m ay be rai sed at any

tim e, irrespective of the prin

cipl e of waiv er" (P eo ple v. Simmons , 256 Il l . Ap p. 3d 65 1, 653 ( 1993) , ci ting Pe o ple v. T er r ell , 13 2 I ll. 2 d 1 78 , 23 0 ( 19 89 ) )
. He r e, sinc e d efe nd an t ha s a ss er t ed t ha t his sent ence is void in t hat t he se nt ence did no t co mply with t he st at ut or y req uire ments pr ovid ed by t he Ha bitu al Criminal Ac t ( 720 ILCS 5/33B-1 et seq . ( West 200 2) ), we r eview d efenda nt 's sentence to assess whether the h

is sentence is , in fact, void. Our supreme

court has conf

irm ed that a defen

dant has a ri

ght to be sen

tenced under ei

ther the l aw i n e f f ec t on th e datehe or s he com m i tted th e c ri me or th e l aw i n e f f ec t on th e datehe or she i s se nten ced. Peo ple v. Ho lli

ns , 51 Ill . 2d 68, 71 (1972). "[I]n the abs ence of a showi ng that [t he de fendant ] w as a dvised of his r ight t o e lect unde r w hich st at ut e he s hou ld be se nt ence d, and an express wai

ver of that r igh

t, [the defendant] was denied due process o f l aw." Ho lli

ns , 51 I ll. 2d a t 71. In g ener al, t he Ha bitu al Criminal Act, which is t he st at ut e pu rsu ant t o w hich defend ant
wa s s en ten ce d, m an da testhe i m pos i ti on of a n atu ral l i f e s en ten cei f a def en da nt i s c onv i cte d of1-06-0302

8

three temporall

y s eparate Clas s X off

enses , or o ther eli

gible seri ous fel

onie s, withi

n a 20-y ear period. 720 ILCS 5/33B-1 et seq . ( West 200 2); People v . Palm er , 218 Il l . 2d 148 , 155 (2 006). Tw o d iff er ent ver sions of t he Ha bitu al Criminal Act w er e in effect bet wee n t he da t e de fendant
comm itted the crim

es f or which he was c onvicted in

this case an d the date defen

dant was sent ence d. Sp ecifically, on D ece mber 1 2, 198 7, which wa s t he da t e o n which de fendant
com m i tted th e aggr avate d c ri m i na l as sa ul t an d the a rm ed robbe ry at i ss uei n th i s p ostc onv

i cti on pe t it io n, t he H abit ua l Cr iminal Act pr o vide d t hat a d efe nda nt sho uld be s ent enc ed t o nat ur al life impr iso nme nt if he o rshe pr ev io us ly had be en co nvic t ed o f t wo o ffen se s t ha t "c o nt ain [ ] t he sa me ele men t s a s a n o ffen se no w c las sifie d in I llino is a s a Cla ss X fe lo ny o rfirs t de gr ee mur de r . " I ll. Rev. Stat., 1986 Supp., ch. 38, par. 33B-1(a) . On Jan uary 1, 1988, whi

ch was a pproxim ately two mont hs aft er defend ant co mmi t t ed t he cr imes at issue in t he pr ese nt cas e, a new ver sion o f the Habi tual Cri mi nal Act went i

nto eff ect. This n

ew versi on of the Habi

tual Cri mi nal Act, which was the versi on of the Act that the ci

rcuit court appli ed at defen dant's se ntenci ng he arin g, provided that a defen

dant could b e sentenc ed to natur al li fe i mprisonm ent if he or she prev

iousl y h ad been
co nvic t ed o f t wo o ffen se s t ha t "c o nt ain [ ] t he sa me e leme nt s a s a n o ffen se no w c las sifie d in I llino is as a Class X fel ony, crim in al sex ual assaul t o r fi rst deg ree murder." ( Emphasis add ed. ) I ll. Rev. Stat . 1987, ch. 38, par. 33B-1(a). Theref ore, it is cl

ear that there were substantiv e di ff erences b etw een th e H ab i tual Cr i m i n al A ct i n ef f ect on th e date de f en da n t committed the crimes

at iss ue in this case and the Habi

tual Crim in al A ct in ef fect on the dat e defendan

t was sentenced i

n th i s ca se. Fu r t he rmo r e, it is c lea rfr o m t his r ec o r d t ha t de fen da nt wa s no t ad vise d b y t he cir cu it co ur t o f his righ t t o elect to be sentenced un der the law

in eff ect at t he tim

e the off enses were comm

itted1-06-0302

9

ra t her t han t he law in effect at t he t ime he was s ent ence d. As suc h, w e must asse ss whe t her t he ci rc ui t cou rt' s f ai l ur e to a dv i se de f en da n t of h i s r i gh t to ch oos e u n der w h i ch sta tute h e wi sh ed to be sen tenc ed de ni ed de f endan t of h i s due proces s ri

ghts or si m pl y washa rm l ess error. A review of t his rec or d co nfirms tha t , in 19 76, defend ant was co nvicte d o f ro bber y and de via t e s ex ua l as sa ult
. De via t e s ex ua l as sa ult ha s t he sa me e leme nt s a s a cr ime s ub se qu en t ly
n am ed cri m i n al sex ual as sa ul t. Fur th er more , i n 19 81 , de f

en da n t wa s c on v i cte d of ra pe , de v i ate sexual assaul t, armed robbery, and aggravated ba tt ery. F in ally , in 1988, defen

dant was convi

cted of ag gr av ate d cri m i n al sex ual as sa ul t an d a rm ed rob b er y . D ef en da n t an d th e S tate ag re e th at b oth the 1 981 c onv

i cti on f or rape a nd th e 198 8 con

vi cti on f or aggra va ted cri m i na l sex ual ass aul t were Class X felonies a nd, t her efo re , bo t h wer e co nvictio ns t hat co uld be c ons ider ed w hen eva luat ing whether def

endan t was a habi

tual cri mi nal , regardless

of whi ch versi on of the Habi

tual Cri mi nal Act was i n ef fect. Def endan t and the State disagree, however, as to whether the 1976
co nvic t io ns, fo reit he rr o bbe ry o rde via t e s ex ua l as sa ult ( i. e. , cr iminal s ex ua l as sa ult ) , co uld pr operl y se rve a s a b as i s f or s en ten ci n g def en da n t un der the H ab i

tual Cr i m i n al A ct. Thi s court has hel

d that a convi ction f

or deviate sex

ual assaul t, despite bei

ng recl assifi ed
as cri m i na l sex ual ass aul t, a Class I f elony, i n a 1984 a mendm en t (Il l . Rev . Stat. 1985, c

h. 38 , par. 12-13(a)(1)), is

suf fi ci ent to sat is fy

the sentenci

ng condi tions un der the Habi

tual Cri mi nal Act prior to its 1988 amen

dme nt. See Pe o ple v. Sims , 166 I ll . App. 3d 28 9, 303 ( 1987); see also People v . Cardenas , 209 Ill . App. 3d 217, 232 (1991). Because this argumen t has been
co nsider ed a nd r eject ed by t his co ur t in bot h Sims and Cardenas , w e find t hat t he circ uit co ur t 's fai lure to advi se def

endan t o f h is righ t t o choose under which statute he wis hed to be sentenc ed1-06-0302

10

was , und er the se c i rcum stan ces , ha rm l ess error. CONCLUSION Fo rt he fo r eg o ing r ea so ns , we af fir m t he ju dg men t o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f Co o k C o un t y. Af fi rmed. FITZ GERA

LD SM ITH, P.J., a

nd G AL LAGHER , J., con

cur.