No. 2-- 05--0688 Fil ed: 10-9-07

______________________________________________________________________________ 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. 98-- CF--1960 ) ROBERT D. WELCH, ) 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.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEMc LA

RE N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: De f en da n t, Ro ber t Welch, a ppe als fro m the t rial co ur t 's dismissal o f his seco nd pos tcon vi cti on petition. W

e vacate an

d reman d. On A ugust 26, 1998, defendan t was charged with solici

tat ion of m

urder for hi

re (720 I LCS 5/8--1.2(a) (West 1998)). On April 9, 1999, def endan t entered a negotiated plea of guil ty unde r whi ch he wassen tenc ed to a term

of 2 8 y ears ' i m pri sonm en t. Durin g the guil ty plea heari ng, the trial courtfai le d to adm

onis h def endan t t hat he would be requi red to serve a three -year period of
mandatory

supervised rel ease (MSR) pursua n t to se cti

on 5 --8 --1 (d) (1) of

the Un i f i ed Code of Correcti ons ( 730 IL CS 5/5 --8--1(d )(1) (W est 199 8)). On Ap r il 2 7, 19 99 , de fe nd an t file d a t imel y pro se motion to withdraw h is guil ty plea and a se pa rate moti on f or re consi de rati on of his sen tence. Nei

ther motion raised

any claim rega rd ing t heNo. 2-- 05--0688

-2-

omi tt ed MSR adm

onis hm ent. On Septemb er 22, 1999, defen dant aban doned hi s m ot ion to withdraw hi s guilty ple a. On March 23, 2000 , defendant fi

led a "resubm

itted" pro se petition to withdraw hi s guilty ple a and vaca t e his sent ence . T he r esu bmitt ed p et itio n did no t ra ise an impro per -a dmo nishment cl aim. The tri al cou rt determ i ne d that i t did n ot ha ve j uri sdi cti on to cons i der the res

ubm i tted peti tion
. On direct re v i ew , th

i s c our t gran ted th e O f f i ce of th e S tate

A pp el l ate De f en der (O SA

D) l ea v e to withdraw as a ppel l ate counsel

und er And er s v. Ca lifo rnia , 368 U.S. 738, 18 L . Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), and aff

irm ed the trial

cou rt. See People v . Wel

ch , No. 2- -00--0363 (2001) ( unpubl is hed order un der Su prem e Court Ru

l e 23). On Ma y 3, 20 01 , d efe nda nt fi le d a pro se pet itio n for po st co nvictio n re lief purs uant t o t he Post-C onv

i cti onH earin

g Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122--1 et seq. (West 2004)), whi ch h e l ater suppl em ented. The petition was la ter amende d by

appoin ted counsel. Nei

ther the origi

nal nor t he
am ended p etition raised the i ssue of the om itted MSR adm

onis hm ent. On October 18, 2002 , follow ingan ev

ide ntiary heari ng, the trial

court deni

ed the am ended peti ti on . O n re v i ew , th

i s c our t, agr eeing that no meri

to rious i ssues were prese nted, all owed OS AD to wi

th dr aw pu rsua n t to Pe nns ylvan ia

v. Fi nley , 48 1 U .S. 55 1, 9 5 L . Ed . 2d 53 9, 1 07 S. Ct. 1990 (1987), and aff irm ed the trial
cou rt. See People v . Wel

ch , No. 2- -02--1230 (2003) ( un pu blish ed o r de run de rSu pr eme Co ur t Ru le 23). On

February 19, 2004, defenda

nt fi le d a petition pursua

nt to section 2--1401 of the Codeof Civil Pr o ce du r e ( Co de ) ( 73 5 I LC S 5 /2
- - 14 01 ( We st 20 02 ) ) , in wh i ch he com pl ai ne d f ort he firs t t ime that he had not been p ro per ly admonished abo ut t he three-year M SR term at hi s guilty ple a heari ng. Defend ant all

eged that he had "j ust recently le arned f rom his place of c onfinement " t hat he wo uld beNo. 2-- 05--0688

-3-

required to serv e a 3-y ea r ter m of MS R f ol l owi ng the com pleti on of hi s 28-year prison s entence. He requestedt hat his priso n sent ence be r edu ced in or der t o inco rp or at e t he MSR term in to hi s 28-year sentence . On May 12, 2004, t he trial

court agai

n appoi nted counsel

to represe

nt de f endan t. Atto rney Clark appe ared on

Jul y 7 an d A ugust 4, 2004, a

nd e xpr ess ed con cern ab o ut ha ving t o ar gu e h is own unreasonablen

ess for not havi

ng raised the MSR i ss ue in t he origi nal postco nvi

ction proceedi

ng. Non eth el es s, th e q ue sti on wa s n ot b roach ed ag ai n an d C l ar k c on ti n ue d to rep re se

n t de f en da n t. On De cember 22, 200 4, t he t rial co ur t allowe d de fendant leave to ame nd a nd tra ns f orm his 2--1401 pet itio n t o a suc ces sive postco nvi ction petition. On Jan

uary 7, 200 5, Clark fil

ed a suc ces sive post con vi cti on peti ti on f or d ef en da n t. O n Ma y 5, 2 00 5, C l ar

k f i l ed an am en de d p eti tion . Th e
am ended petition conten

ded, in relev ant part, t hat defe

ndan t's guilty ple a shoul

d be set asi

de because defend ant was not admonished at the gui lty ple a heari

ng that he would have to serve a three-yea r term of MS R follo wing his re lease fr om t he De par t ment o f Cor re ct ions. The re was no al l eg ati on that defend ant 's attorney

s m ay ha ve be en i ne f f ecti ve or un r ea so na ble for faili ng t o p re viou sly raise t he MSR i ssue. The Stat e fi

le d a m ot ion to dismi

ss the succes si

ve postconviction petition, which the trial courtgranted

aft er a hea ring. The t rial co ur t co nclude d t hat defend ant had w aived t he issue by faili ng t o ra i se i t on di

rect ap peal or in his f i rst postcon

vi cti on petiti

on. Addi tion al l y , the tri al court concl uded that defenda

nt was not s en

ten ce d to a term gre ater th an

he ba rga i ne d f orb ec au se , du

e to his el i gi bi l i ty f or da y-f or - da y credit, he would serve onl y a pproxim ately 14 ye ars of hi

s 28-year sentence . Theref

ore, t he trial

court reasoned, the 3-ye ar MSR term f oll owing 1 4 y ear s in the Dep ar t ment o f Co rr ec t io ns d id no t ext end de fe ndant's s entence b ey ond the agreed-upon 28-yearNo. 2-- 05--0688

-4-

sentence . Fi

nal ly , the trial court concl

uded that de f

en da nt f ai l ed to es tab l i sh

tha t he woul d n ot have ple aded guilty

had h e known of the M SR term. Thi s appeal fol lowed. Defend ant con

ten dsth at th e tr i al cou rt erred i n d i sm i ss i ng hi s s uc ce ss i ve pos tcon vi cti on pet itio n. The Act "pr ovid es a n avenu e by which ade f en da nt m ay ch al l en gehi s c onv i cti on or sentence f orv i ol ati on s of f ederal or s tate con sti tuti on al ri gh ts ." Peop le v
. Whit field , 217 Ill . 2d 177, 183 (2005 ). A

de f en da nt i s enti tl ed to r elie f un

der the Act only

if he can prove that he suf

fered a substantial

de pr iva t io n o f his c o nst it ut io na l rig ht s inthe proc ee di ng s th at p roduce d h

i s c onv i cti on or sentence . Whit field , 21 7 I l l . 2d at 1 83 . Th

i s a pp ea l ari se s f rom th e s ec on d- sta

ge dis m i ss al of defend ant 's po st co nvictio n pet itio n; suc h a di sm i ss al i s s ub j ec t to de novo revi ew. Whit field , 217 I ll. 2d at 182. In t he pr ese nt cas e, it is und isput ed t hat t he t rial co ur t failed t o a dmo ni sh def en da nt in accordance with Suprem e Court Rule 402 (177 Ill . 2d R. 4 02). Pur sua nt to Rul e 402 , ev ery defendan t who ent ers aple a o f gu ilt y has a d ue pr o ce ss r igh t t o be pr o pe r ly and f ull y a dmoni shed. Whit field , 217 Ill . 2d at 188. Co mplia nc e w it h Ru le 402 (a )( 2) re quir es t hat a de fendant be adm onis hed tha t the pe riod of

MS R p erta

i ni ng to an of f ense i s p art of

the senten ce t hat will be i m posed
. Whit field , 21 7 I ll. 2d at 188. There is n o substantial

compl ia nce wi th Rul e 402, and due process is violated, when a

defen dant ple ads guilty

in exch angef ora specifi

c sentenc e and the tria

l courtf ai l s to ad v i se th e def en da n t, prior to accept in

g the ple a, that an MSR term wi ll be added to that
sen tenc e. Whit field , 217 Ill . 2d at 195. It i s u n di sp ute d t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t he r ein did no t ad mo nish de fen da nt , pu r su an t t o Ru le 402(a )(2), th at a

term of M SR woul

d be adde d to the ag

reed-upon s en

tenc e of 28 y ears . In l i gh t of t he cle ar ho lding o f Whit field , de fen da nt ha s e st ab lishe d a su bst an t ial vio la tion of hi s due pro cessNo. 2-- 05--0688

1 Our supreme court has recently concluded that t he phrase"proce dural def aul t" i s the more precisetermi

nology where, as h

ere, the cl ai

m i s m ade that a party fai

le d to adequately

preserve an is sue f or later appell

ate revie w. See Whit field , 217 Ill . 2d at 187.

-5- rights. The St at e ar gue s t hat , r ega rd less o f due pr oc ess c ons ider at ions, dismissal of d efenda nt 's
suc ces sive postco nvi

ction pet it io n sh o uld be

af f i rmed b ase d on pr

i nc i ples of wai ver. 1 I n g en er al, is sues tha t coul d have b een r

ai se d on di rect appe al, but we

re n ot, are n ot am en ab l e to p ostc onv

i cti on review. See Whit field , 217 Ill . 2d at 187; Pe o ple v. C ollins , 15 3 I l l . 2d 13 0, 1 35 (1 99 2) . Th

e S tate asserts, wi

th out a n y re f eren ce to t he fa ct s o f Whit field , that Peo ple v. Newm an , 365 Ill . App. 3d 285 (2006 ), is m

ore "pr ocedur all

y si mi lar" to t hi s case than is Whit field an d sh oul d l ead th i s c our t to find that de f en da n t h as pr oce du ral l y de f aul ted . Th e S tate appe ar s to b as e th

i s a ss er ti on on th e f act th at, wh ile t he de fendant in Newm an and d efenda nt herei

n both f il ed m ot ions to withdraw thei

r guil ty pleas and d irect app eals t hat failed t o r aise t he MS R issue , t he de fendant in Whit field f i l ed n ei ther. We do not fi

nd that the is sue of t he de fendant 's pr ior fil ings is cent ra l to t he su pr eme co ur t 's
an alys is in Whit field . In concl udin g that t here was n

o pro cedural

def ault, t he Whi t field court
em phasi zed two fa cts: (1 ) the tri

al court did not ad

moni sh the def endan t about MS R; and (2) th e defend ant did not learn

abo ut t he impos itio n of MS R unt il he was in pr ison, so met ime a ft er t he t ime to dire ct ly appea l ha d ex pired. S ee Whit field , 2 17 I ll. 2d a t 188 . B eca use of t hese fact s, t he defend ant "coul

d not hav e raised

the e rror ina m

otion to with draw h i s pl ea or a d i rect ap peal ." Whit field , 217 Ill. 2d at 188. These sa me fa cts are p re se

n t i n th e c as e b ef

oreusan d l ead u s to
co nc lude th at Whit field , mo re so t han Newm an , is applicab le to t hi s case. It is un disput ed t ha t defend ant wasnot adm

oni shed ab out MSR a

nd th at he l earn ed ab out it l

ater, while in priso n. The re is no evi dence that he coul

d have rais ed

the is sue i

n a prior fili

ng, because

there is no in dic ation thatNo. 2-- 05--0688

-6-

he had kn owl edge of the i ssue. Def

endan t had no su ch knowl edge

be caus e the

tria l courtfai le d to apprisehim, as r equ ired , o f the MSR t er m tha t gi v es ri seto his claim. Acco rd ingly, we find no pr oce du ra l de f aul t. The r eme dy t o be gr an t ed , t he n, r ema ins a s t he o nly que st ion. In Whit field , t he su pr eme court modifi ed t he defendan

t's 25-year prison sentence, which was to be f

ollowed by

3 years of MSR, to a 22 -year pr ison s ent ence follow ed by3 year s o f MSR, t her eby giving t he de fendant the be ne f i t of his bargai n f or a 25-year sen

tence. See Whit field , 217 Ill . 2d at 205. We fi nd such a reme dy appr opri ate

here as we l l . Th eref ore , w e v ac ate t he se nt ence impose d by t he circ uit co ur t and r emand wi th di r ec t io ns t ha t it imp o se a s en t en ce o f 2 5 ye ar s' imp r iso nme nt t o be fo llo we d b y ater m o f 3 ye ars' m andatory superv

is ed rele ase. Vacated and r eman

ded with directions. CALLUM, J., concurs. JUSTICE GILLERAN JOHN SON, diss entin g: Contra ry to what the

maj ority be l i ev es, Whit field is not co nt ro lli ng in t his cas e. Whit field is dis t ing uis ha ble bot h s ub sta n ti v el y an d p roc ed ur al l y . Su b sta n ti v el y , the f acts a redi f f eren t. P r o ce du r ally, Whit field in volves a f

irst post convicti on pet ition whi le the present case inv

olves a
suc ces sive postconv

i cti on petiti

on. Ac co r di ng ly, t he dismissal o f the defend ant 's pe t itio n sho uld be aff irm ed. S ub st an t ive ly, in Whit field , the court determi ned that the def

enda nt 's impro per -a dmo nishment cla im was not waived for two reasons. First, t here was no waiver because the de f en da nt c oul d n ot have been expected to obje ct at t rial

to hi s lack of adm

onis hm ent. Specif

ic ally , the Whit field court stated:No. 2-- 05--0688

-7-

"[I]t wo uld be inco ngr uo us t o ho ld t hat defend ant for feite d t he righ t to br i ng a p ostc onv

i cti on cla im beca use he did no t objec t [a t t rial] t o t he ci rc ui t cou rt' s f ai l ur e to admoni sh hi

m. To so ho ld wo uld place t he o nus o n defend ant to ensure h is own adm onis hm ent in accord with due pro cess." Whit field , 217 Ill . 2d at 188. Second, t he co ur t det er mined t her e wa s no wa ive rbe ca us e t he de fen da nt 's c laim c o uld not have b een presented an y earl i er, i.e. , in a mo t ion t o w ithd raw hi s pl ea o r in a d irect app eal. Sp ecifically, the Whit field court stated: "More over, de f

en da n t al l eg es th at i t wa s n ot un ti l he wa s in p r iso n t ha t he lea rne d t ha t his sent ence had be en incre ase d by a t hr ee - yea rpe r io d o f MS R. T he r efo r e, he co uld not have rais ed th e error i n a m oti on to withdraw

hi s plea or a direct appeal." Whit field , 217 Ill . 2d at 188. Applying Whit field in the present case, the def endan t's argum ent cann ot be consi

dered wai ved f orhi s f ai lur e to o b

j ec t a t t rial

to hi s i mproper adm

onis hm ent. See Whit field , 217 Ill . 2d at 188. Howev er, the defe

ndan t's argum ent is wai ved her e be ca

us e, i n c ontr as t to Whit field , t her e is no i nd i ca ti on in the p re sent cas e t hat t he de fendant co uld no t have p re sent ed t he impro per -a dmo nishment cla im in ei ther hi s di

rect appeal or hi s f

irst postconvi ction petition. The def endan t's am ended
suc ces sive postco nvi

ction petition states o nly t ha t t he de fen da nt wa s ne ve rpr o pe r ly admo nished a nd that t his violated hi s constitutional righ t t o due process. The defe ndan t's af fi davi t indi cates only that he would not have accepted the guil ty plea agreem

ent off ered to him

had h e known of the obl i ga ti on to ser ve a three-yea

r term of MSR. There is no i ndication i

n ei ther the successi

ve postconvict io n pe ti ti on or the de f endan t's af f i dav i t that he did not learn

of the requi

redt hr ee - yea rt er m o f MS R u nt il after he h ad filed his d ire ct ap pe al a nd his f i rst postcon

vi cti on petiti

on. The def

endan t's i m proper-No. 2-- 05--0688

-8-

admo nishment cl ai

m i s wai ved because he h as f ai le d to show that he could n ot have rais ed

his c laim earl i er. Whit field is, there f

ore, di sti ngu i shab l e. See Newm

an , 3 65 I ll. App. 3d a t 290 (d istingu ishing Whit field o n t he ba sis that t he Newm an defend ant made no alle gation as to when h e l earned ab out his im proper admoni shm

ent). For t hi s reason, the di sm is sal of the def

endant's su cce ssive postco nvi ction petition should be af fi rmed. The maj ority essential

ly in terp rets Whit field to me an that a defen

dant can n

ever know about
an im pr oper admoni shm

ent if he was n

ever adm onis hed an d, therefore, there can nev er be a pr o ce du r al d efa ult of thi s i ssue. However, thi s i s not what the Whit field co ur t he ld and it is not t he
re al i ty of the ma tt er. Even if a def

endan t is n ot adm onis hed b y the trial court , general

ly the three-yea

r term o f M SR will be r efl ec t ed o n t he mit t imus o ra d efe nd an t will be ad vise d b y t he I llino is Dep ar t ment of

Corr ec ti ons of h i s rel ea se da te . T he major ity fails to re co gnize t hat t he Whit field court conducteda wai

ver ana ly si s and specifi

cally consider ed whether or not t he defen dant in that case
co uld hav e rais ed hi s clai m e arli er. The Whit field cou

rt a pp aren tl y deter m i n ed th at b ec au se

th e defend ant did no t learn a bou t his thr ee- year t er m of MS R unt il he was in pr ison, he co uld no t have rais ed h i s c l ai m i n a m oti on to wi th dr aw h i s g ui l ty ple a or o n di rect appeal b ecause one or the other must be f i l ed i n re l ati ve l y short order, i.e. , w it hin 3 0 d ays o f sentenci ng. Des pit e t he major ity's inter pr et at ion, t he " cle ar ho lding o f Whit field " (sli p op. at 4 ) i s n

ot t hat an impro per -a dmo nishment cla im can n ev er b e wai

ve d. See Newm

an , 365 Ill . App. 3d at 290 ( Whit field did no t ho ld t ha t all i m proper-M SR-ad

moni sh men t cl ai m s we re i m m une f rom f orfe i ture). Moreover, it is i

nappropriate to so bro adl y i nterpret t he Whit field deci sion. Years of MSR
and y ears i n pr i son a re not compa

rab l e. Pe opl

e v . J ar re tt , 372 Ill . App. 3d 344, 351 (2 007). MSR is not a st at ic per iod of su per vision, and the Pri sone r Rev i ew B oard

has the discretion to release aNo. 2-- 05--0688

-9-

pri sone r f rom M SR b ef

ore hi s term has e xpire d ( 730 ILC S 5 /3
-- 3- -8 (a ), (b) (We st 2004 )). Ja rre tt , 372 Ill. App . 3 d at 351 . Ma ny cou rt s have expr esse d co ncer n over the Whit fi eld deci sion. See Pe o ple v. Jo lly , No. 4--05--1015, sli p op. at 12 (June 21, 2007) (stat in g that t he Whit field de ci si on does not amount to a " 'Get -Ou t- Of-Jail-Fre e car d' "); People v. Bor st , 37 2 I ll . Ap p. 3d 33 1, 334 (20 07) (indic a tin

g concern over Whit field ); Ja

rre tt , 372 Ill . App. 3d at 351 (expressi ng "seri ous co ncer ns" abo ut bot h t he ana lysis and t he r emedy in Whit field ). Whit field i s a l so p ro ced ur ally distinguisha ble fro m the p re sent cas e. In Whit field t he defendan t did not file a direct appeal and raised h is om itted-MS R-admonis

hm ent clai m f or t he f irst t ime in an origi na l postconv i cti on petiti

on. Whit field , 2 17 I ll. 2d a t 180 . I n t he pr ese nt cas e, t he defend ant fi

le d a di rect appeal

and an origi nal po st co nvic t io n p et it io n. Ho we ve r , t he de fen da nt did not rais e the present clai

m un til he f il ed this successi ve postconvict ion pet itio n. S ucc essive pos tcon vi cti on petitions elic it uni que poli cy considerations that are not im pli cated by the fi li ng of an origi nal postconv

i cti on petiti

on. Pe o ple v. Mc Do na ld , 364 Il l . A pp. 3d 390, 39 3 ( 200 6) . T he
maj ori ty fails to co nsider t he pr oc edu ra l diff er ence s bet wee n Whit field an d th e present case. See Pe o ple v. Ad ams , 373 Ill . App. 3d 991, 9 95 ( 200 7) (be cau se t he ca se invo lved a s ucc essive po st co nvictio n pet itio n, t he de fendant 's re liance o n Whit field wasm i spl ace d). The pur po se o f a pr oc eed ing bro ught unde r t he Po st -Co nvictio n Hea ring Act (the Act) (725 ILCS 5/122--1 et seq. (West 2004)) is to resolve a ll egations that

constitutional

vi olations occurred at t rial, w hen t hos e allega t ions ha ve n ot been , an d c o ul d n o t ha ve be en , ad ju di ca t ed pr ev io us ly. Pe o ple v. E vans , 186 Ill . 2d 83, 8 9 (199 9). "In an i ni ti al pos t[]c onv

i cti on proce edi

ng , th e c om

mon la wdo ct rine s o f res j udi ca

ta an d w aiv er o pe r at e t o ba rt he r ais ing o f cla ims t ha t we r e o rco uld have been adjudicated o n di

rect a ppeal." Peop l e v . Pi tson barger , 20 5 I ll. 2 d 4 44 , 45 8 ( 20 02 )
. I n t hisNo. 2-- 05--0688

-10-

con tex t, the doctr in

e of wai ver is a r ul e of ad m i n i strati v e c on v en i en ce , not a juri sd

i cti on al or a b sol ute ba r to procedura

l l y def aul ted cl ai m s. Pitsonba

rger , 205 Ill . 2d at 458. In the context of a s uc ce ss iv e p ostc onv i cti on p eti ti on, the proc ed ura l ba r of wai ve r i s n ot
mer ely a princi ple of j udicial adm

in ist r ation; it i s an express requirem ent of the st atut e. 725 I LCS 5/122 --3 (Wes t 200 4) ( an

y cl ai m s n ot rai se d i n a n or i gi na l pos tcon vi cti on pet ition ar e waived) ; Pe o ple
v. Sm i th , 341 Ill. App. 3d 530, 539 ( 2003) ( because there is l ess inter est in pro viding a fo ru m for t he vi nd i ca ti on o f de fen da nt 's c o nst it ut io na l rig ht s ina s uc ce ss ive pr o ce ed ing , "w aiv er , wh ich wo uld be
a pro cedural aff

irm ative defen

se for purpo ses of the fi rst pet ition, becomes a su bst an t iv e co nsider at ion g oing to the meri ts of a suc ce ss i

ve pos tcon vi cti on petition" ). The Act contempl ates t he filing o f o nly

one p ostconv

i cti on petiti

on. People v . Morgan , 212 I ll. 2 d 1 48 , 15 3 ( 20 04 )
. "O nly when fundam ental f airness so requ ires wi

ll the str ict appli

cation of this s tatutory b ar be relax ed." Pitsonba rger , 205 Ill . 2d at 458. Under the ci

rcums tances i n thi s case, the cause-and-prej udic e test is the an al ytical to ol that is to b e u se d to det er mine

whether f un da men tal f ai rnes s req ui res tha t an exce ption b e m

ade to s ec ti on 122--3 o f t he Ac t so t ha t a c laim rais ed for the f

irst tim e i n a succe ssi

ve postconviction petition ma y be considered on its m

erits. See Pitsonba

rger , 2 05 I ll. 2d a t 459 (d iff er ent standard m

ay be appl ie d in a ca se i nv olv i ng a clai m of a ctual i nn ocence or the

death pen al ty). It is the defe ndan t's burden to dem on str ate b oth cau se a nd pr ejudice for eac h claim raised in his succe ssive pe t itio n. Mc Do na ld , 364 I ll. A pp. 3d a t 393 . "F orpurposes of thi s test, 'cause' h as been defi ned as an obje ctive factor external to the defe

nse that i mpe ded counsel's ef

forts to rais e the clai

m i n an earli er pro ceeding." Peo ple v. Morgan , 212 Ill. 2d 148 , 1 53 ( 200 4) . " 'Pr ejudice ' exist s whe re t he de fendant can s how t hat t he cl ai me d constitutional

erro r so i nf ected h i s tri al that the resu l tin g con vi cti on v i ola ted due proces s."No. 2-- 05--0688

-11-

Morgan , 212 Il

l . 2d at 15 4. The c au se -a

n d- pr ej udi ce

tes t i s c om pos ed of two e l em en ts, b oth of whi ch
m ust b e establ

i shed f or the de f endan t to prevai

l
. Pitsonba

rger , 205 Ill . 2d at 464. By ena ct ing s ec t io n 12 2- -1 (f) of the Act (72 5 ILCS 5/122 --1(f ) (We st 2004 )), our l egi slature adopted the cause-and-prej udi ce t est as d efined in Pitsonba rgeras a p roc ed

ur al h urdl e th at a defend ant mus t o ve r co me bef ore fili ng a succe ssi

ve postconviction petition. See 725 IL CS 5/1 22-- 1( f) (West 20 04 ). S ecti on 122 --1 (f ) re qui res a def en da nt to ob tai n l ea ve of cou rt as a c ond i ti on prece den t to fil i ng a suc ces si ve postconv i cti on petiti

on. Pe o ple v . L aP oi

n te , 365 Ill . App. 3d 914, 921 (2 006). U

nti l the c ourt gran

ts suc h l eav e, a succ es si ve pe ti ti on i s n ot properly

on fi le and m ay not be cons i dered

on i ts m eri ts. La Poi n te , 365 Ill . App. 3d at 921. The legislature i nten de d to requi re a def en da n t se ek i n g to fil e a s ucc essive peti

tion to sati sf y the c aus e-an

d-prejudice test bef

ore he co uld o bt ain a ru ling o n t he me rit s o f t he p et it io n it se lf. People v . Brockman , 363 Ill . App. 3d 679, 688 (2 00 6) . If

a def en da n t f ai l s to obtain leav e o f co ur t pr ior t o filing his succ essive p et itio n, t he
cou rt, whet he r sua sp on

te or on the

State's motion , shoul d di sm

i ss a ny such pe titi on. People v
. DeB erry, 372 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 10 56, 106 0 (200 7). In th e p re se n t ca se , the def

en da n t di d ob tai n l ea v e to withdraw

hi s s ec ti on 2 --1 401 pe ti

ti on and fi le a success iv

e postco nvi

ction petition. However, the defen dant never obtained l

eave pur sua nt to se ct io n 12 2- -1 (f) of the Act. The def endan t never set f

ort h an y a rgumen t as to why

he pass ed

t he cause-and-prej udic e test. At oral arg ument , for the fi rst t im e, defen se counsel

argued that
un r ea so na ble assist ance of p os t co nv ic t ion co unse l, in faili ng t o r aise t he impro per -a dmo nishment is sue in the d efenda nt 's first po st co nvictio n pet itio n, w as "c aus e. " Ho weve r, t he su pr eme court has held that "cause" "must

fl ow from som

ethin g ot her than

the pur porte d i ne pti tude or i na de qua cy of t he prior po stco nvi

ction att orney." Peo ple v. Sza bo , 18 6 I ll. 2d 19, 42 ( 199 8). Moreover, weca nn otNo. 2-- 05--0688

-12-

consider argumen ts raised f or t he f irst tim e on appeal . See Pe o ple v. Jones , 213 Ill . 2d 498, 508-09 (2004 ). The defend ant ha s e ss en t ially t r ea t ed se ct io n 1 22
- - 1( f) as if it did not ex i st. For thi s rea son as we ll, the dis

mi ssal of the def endan t's postco nvi

ction petition should be af

fi rmed. See DeB erry, 372 I ll. A pp. 3d a t 106 0 (c ourts

sh oul d n ot con si der an y thi ng i n a pos tcon vi cti on p eti ti on that violates sect ion 122
-- 1(f) o f the Act ); La Poi n te , 365 Ill . App. 3d at 921 (" [U ]n ti l th e tr i al cou rt gra n ts such leave [to a defe

ndan t un der sect i on 1 22- -1( f

) of the A ct], a s ec ond

or s ub se que

nt p eti ti on i s n ot pr o pe r ly on file and may not be co nsider ed o n its mer its. To hold ot her wise w ou ld be to trea t se cti on 12 2- -1 (f) as t ho ug h it did not ex i st"); se e al so Jo lly , slip op. at 12 (the Whit field de ci si on d oesnot
a am ount to a " ' Get-Out-O f

-Jai l -Fre e ca rd,'" which a defend ant may use w heneve r a nd ho weve r he wish es; defend ant s who wish

to vind ica t e t he ir r igh t s t o pr o pe rMS R a dmo nish men t s mu st do so in
acc ordance wi

th the requi rem en ts of th e Act).