2020 IL App (1st) 172241-U

No. 1-17-2241 

Order filed August 28, 2020 

Fifth Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as 

precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JESSE A. ZUNO, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of 

Cook County. 

No. 11 CR 17775 

Honorable 

Geary W. Kull, 

Judge, Presiding. 

JUSTICE HALL delivered the judgment of the court. 

 Presiding Justice Hoffman and Justice Rochford concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Summary dismissal of defendant’s pro se postconviction petition is affirmed over 

his contention that the circuit court did not read the entire petition and address each 

claim therein within 90 days. 

¶ 2 Defendant Jesse A. Zuno appeals from the summary dismissal of his pro se petition for 

relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2016)).1 On 

1 Defendant’s name is also spelled Jessy in the record.
No. 1-17-2241 

- 2 - 

appeal, defendant contends this cause must be remanded for further proceedings because the circuit 

court failed to read the entire petition and rule on every claim therein. We affirm. 

¶ 3 On August 19, 2013, defendant entered a plea of guilty to attempt murder (720 ILCS 5/8-

4(a) (West 2012); 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2012)) and was sentenced to 31 years in prison.

Defendant did not file a motion to withdraw the plea and vacate the judgment; rather, he filed a 

late notice of appeal, which this court allowed on February 25, 2014. We then dismissed 

defendant’s appeal because although he was admonished in substantial compliance with Illinois 

Supreme Court Rule 605(c) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001), he did not file a motion to withdraw his plea and 

vacate the judgment before filing an appeal. See People v. Zuno, 2015 IL App (1st) 140440-U.

¶ 4 On March 24, 2017, defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition, alleging that trial 

counsel was ineffective for failing to interview a witness, file a motion to suppress identification, 

and move to dismiss the charge of attempt first degree murder. The petition further alleged that 

defendant was not “substantially” admonished pursuant to Rule 605(c), and the cause should be 

remanded to the trial court for appointment of postplea counsel to assist defendant in “perfecting 

an appeal from his conviction.” Defendant did not attach any affidavits to the petition. 

¶ 5 On May 5, 2017, the circuit court summarily dismissed the petition. Specifically, the court 

stated that defendant “filed a handwritten petition” alleging “a lot of misconduct” and “ineffective 

conduct” by trial counsel. The court noted, however, that defendant’s petition acknowledged he 

pleaded guilty and no “conduct that he complains of result[ed] in his plea,” “affected his plea,” or 

“coerced” his plea. Moreover, defendant did not “allege that he was given the wrong advice for 

his plea.” Therefore, defendant’s petition was “without merit and patently frivolous.” The circuit 
No. 1-17-2241 

- 3 - 

court’s half-sheet entry for May 5, 2017, states “FRIVOLOUS & W/O MERIT DISMISSED.” On 

September 22, 2017, this court granted defendant leave to file a late notice of appeal. 

¶ 6 On appeal, defendant contends that the circuit court’s “apparent failure” to read his entire

petition requires remand for further proceedings under the Act. Specifically, defendant argues that 

the circuit court did not address all the issues raised in the petition when dismissing it.

¶ 7 The Act provides a procedural mechanism through which a defendant may assert a 

substantial denial of his constitutional rights in the proceedings which resulted in his conviction. 

725 ILCS 5/122-1 (West 2016). At the first stage of a postconviction proceeding, the circuit court 

must independently review the petition within 90 days of filing, and taking the allegations as true,

determine if the petition is frivolous or patently without merit. People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1, 10 

(2009). “We ordinarily presume that the trial judge knows and follows the law unless the record 

indicates otherwise.” People v. Gaultney, 174 Ill. 2d 410, 420 (1996). 

¶ 8 A summary dismissal order impliedly denies all requests in the defendant’s prayer for 

relief. People v. Harris, 224 Ill. 2d 115, 139 (2007). When entering a dismissal order, “the court 

is not required to provide a written response to each and every specific claim that is presented 

within a postconviction petition.” People v. Maclin, 2014 IL App (1st) 110342, ¶ 27. Partial 

summary dismissals are not permitted by the Act, and if even one claim raised in a pro se

postconviction petition is not frivolous or patently without merit, the entire petition must advance 

for further proceedings under the Act. People v. Rivera, 198 Ill. 2d 364, 370-71 (2001). Although 

partial summary dismissal is improper, the court’s failure to address every claim in writing does 

not necessarily render a summary dismissal a partial dismissal. People v. Lee, 344 Ill. App. 3d 851, 
No. 1-17-2241 

- 4 - 

855 (2003). This court reviews the summary dismissal of a postconviction petition de novo. People 

v. Tate, 2012 IL 112214, ¶ 10. 

¶ 9 In the case at bar, defendant argues that because the circuit court did not explicitly discuss 

each claim raised in the pro se postconviction petition when dismissing it, this court cannot 

“presume” that the circuit court read the entire petition. We disagree. This is not a case where the 

circuit court entered a partial summary dismissal by determining that one of the claims in the 

petition must advance for further proceedings under the Act. Rather, the circuit court dismissed 

the entire petition as frivolous and patently without merit but did not address every claim raised in 

the petition in its dismissal orders.

¶ 10 Lee is instructive. In that case, the defendant raised two issues in his postconviction 

petition. In the order summarily dismissing the petition, the circuit court explained its reasons for 

rejecting one of the issues, but not the other. Lee, 344 Ill. App. 3d at 852. On appeal, the defendant 

argued that the cause must be remanded because the circuit court did not explain its reasons for 

dismissing the second issue in its written dismissal order, and this failure constituted an improper 

partial summary dismissal. Id. at 854-55. 

¶ 11 This court rejected the defendant’s argument, explaining that a judgment must generally 

be construed to give effect to the circuit court’s intention and uphold its validity where supported 

by the wording of the judgment. Id. at 855. As none of the defendant’s claims were advanced for 

further proceedings, the fact that the circuit court gave no reason for dismissing one of the 

petition’s claims was not contrary to its plain intent to dismiss the entire petition. Id. In support of 

this conclusion, we further noted that the circuit court’s written order stated that the petition was 

dismissed and “the parties understood the order as a complete dismissal subject to immediate 
No. 1-17-2241 

- 5 - 

appellate review.” Id. Therefore, the circuit court “plainly intended to dismiss the entire petition” 

and we declined to construe the order as a partial summary dismissal. Id. 

¶ 12 Here, the circuit court noted that defendant’s petition alleged “a lot of misconduct” or 

“ineffective conduct” by trial counsel. Although the circuit court did not expressly address 

defendant’s claims that the trial court failed to substantially admonish him regarding the procedure 

for challenging his guilty plea and that he should have been appointed counsel to assist him in 

perfecting his direct appeal, the circuit court orally dismissed the petition as “without merit and 

patently frivolous” and entered a written order in the half-sheet to that effect. The written order 

further stated that the petition was dismissed and “off call.” As in Lee, the circuit court’s oral and 

written dismissal orders in this case showed that it intended to dismiss the entire petition. We 

further note that defendant apparently understood that the circuit court’s summary dismissal order 

was a final order subject to appellate review because he filed an appeal from that judgment. See 

id. (“the parties understood the [summary dismissal] order as a complete dismissal subject to 

immediate appellate review”). 

¶ 13 Defendant, however, relies on Maclin to argue that the circuit court’s failure to organize

its analysis of his petition’s claims in the same order and with the same section headings as the 

petition suggests that it failed to review and address every claim. We disagree.

¶ 14 In Maclin, the defendant argued on appeal from the summary dismissal of his 

postconviction petition that the circuit court erred in failing to address all the claims therein. 

Maclin, 2014 IL App (1st) 110342, ¶ 1. In rejecting the defendant’s argument on appeal, this court 

noted that our supreme court has held that when a postconviction petition is summarily dismissed, 

the circuit court “impliedly denies all requests in the defendant’s prayer for relief.” Id. ¶ 27 (citing 
No. 1-17-2241 

- 6 - 

Harris, 224 Ill. 2d at 139). Moreover, the circuit court’s order in that case found that the issues 

presented in the defendant’s petition were frivolous and patently without merit, did not limit its 

judgment to a specific claim or claims, and did not attempt to enter a partial dismissal. Id. We 

concluded that contrary to the defendant’s argument, “the court is not required to provide a written 

response to each and every specific claim that is presented in a postconviction petition.” Id. As 

further evidence that the circuit court considered every claim in the petition, we noted that the 

court used the petition’s section headings to organize the dismissal order and the mere fact that the 

order did not “comment” on every sub-argument did not mean that the court failed to consider 

every claim. Id. ¶ 28 

¶ 15 Thus, contrary to defendant’s argument on appeal, the mere fact that the circuit court did 

not “address, individually, every argument” (see id.) raised in his postconviction petition when

dismissing it does not constitute error or establish that the court failed to consider all of defendant’s 

claims. 

¶ 16 We are similarly unpersuaded by defendant’s reliance on People v. Sparks, 393 Ill. App. 

3d 878 (2009). In that case, which involved the summary dismissal of a postconviction petition, 

we expressed “concerns” because it was unclear from the record whether the circuit court 

considered a claim of actual innocence based on an attached affidavit. Id. at 886. Here, unlike in

Sparks, all of defendant’s claims were contained in the four corners of the petition and no affidavits 

in support were attached. 

¶ 17 In this case, although the circuit court did not discuss every claim raised in the instant 

petition, the court stated that the petition was frivolous and patently without merit, dismissed the 

petition, and ordered the petition off call. The court’s dismissal order therefore “impliedly” denied 
No. 1-17-2241 

- 7 - 

all the claims raised in defendant’s pro se postconviction petition (Harris, 224 Ill. 2d at 139), and 

we affirm that judgment. 

¶ 18 For the forgoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County. 

¶ 19 Affirmed.