No. 2-- 06--0821 Fil ed: 12-21-07

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ WILLIE L. GIBSON, ) Ap pe al fr o m t he Cir cu it ) Co ur t o f La ke Co un t y. Pe ti ti on er -A pp el l an t, )

) v. ) No. 01-- CF--3007 ) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) ILLINO IS, ) Ho no r ab le ) Vic t o r ia A. Ro ss et t i, Responden

t-Appell ee. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEHUTC HI

NS ON de l i v ered th e op i ni on of th e c our t: Peti tion er, Willie L. Gib so n, ap pe als t he t r ial c o ur t 's o r de rsu mmar ily dis miss ing his pe ti ti on f orpo st co nvictio n re lief, pur sua nt to se cti on 1 22- -2. 1(a

)(2 ) of the Pos t-Con vi cti on Hea ring Ac t (t he A ct) (725 ILCS 5 /122-- 2.1(a) (2) (West 2004)) . Peti ti one r con ten dstha t hi s p eti ti on wa s imp r o pe r ly dis mi ssed and s hou ld have be en

cons i dered

pursuan t to secti ons 1 22--4through 122--6 o f the A ct (725 I LC S 5 /1 22
- - 4 t hr o ug h 1 22
- - 6 ( We st 20 04 ) ) be ca us e t he t r ial c o ur t faile d t o dis miss his pe ti ti on withi n 90 day s of f il in g and docketin

g. We reverse

and rem and. On Decem ber 28, 2005, petitioner f il ed a pro se pet itio n for re lief und er th e Act (see 725 ILCS 5/122--1 et seq. (West 2004)). On that date, pet itioner als o fi le d a mot ion a sk ing t ha t his pe ti ti on be he ard by a j udg e other than Ju dge Vi ctor ia Rossetti becaus e the petiti on alle ged her miscond uct as the trial

judge . On Jan

uary 26, 2006, petitioner fi le d a han dwritten document reiteratin g ma ny of the clai

ms he m ade i n hi s petiti on and i

n hi s m ot ion f or substitution of j udge.No. 2-- 06--0821

-2-

On Febr uar y 28, 200 6, Jud ge R os set t i tr ansfer re d t he mat t er t o J udg e Chr isto phe r St a rck. On Ma rc h 3, 2 00 6, J

udge Sta rc k r ev i ew ed th e h an dw ri tten Ja n ua ry 26 docum

en t and sta ted th at, al thoughit con

tai ne d s ome " bl

an d re f ere nc esto a sub sti

tution fr o m Ju dg e R o ss et t i, " mo r e s pe cific allegat ions were contain

ed i n the Decem

ber 28, 2005, petition. Judge Starck determi ned that "t he do cument on January

26th ap pa r en t ly is mo reof a l ette r." Judg e S tarck

con ti n ue d th e m atte r to reviewthe D ecem

ber 28, 2 00 5, petition. Af ter t wo more continuan

ces, Judge Starck ordered petitioner to appear in

court to present argum

ent on hi s m

ot ion f or substitution of j udge. On Apr il 26, 2 006 , Ju dge St ar ck c ond uct ed a hear ing on p eti ti one r' s m oti on f or s ub sti tution of j udge . Fol

l owi ng a rg um en t, Ju dg e S tarck

den i ed peti ti on er' s m otion an d r etu rned th e c as e to Ju dg e R o ss et t i. On Jun e 26, 2006, Judge Ro sset t i ente re d a w rit t en o rd er summarily dismissing pet itio ner 's po st co nvic ti on

pe t it io n, find ing t ha t ea ch o f t he cla ims w as wa ive d, ba rr ed by re s judi ca ta , o r ot herwise wit ho ut mer it
. Pe t it io ne rt imely app ea ls fo llo win g t he de nia l o f his m otion to recons i der. Petitioner contends thatt he o r de ro f su mmar y dis miss al w as vo id u nd er t he Ac t be ca us e it
was r en de r ed mo r e t ha n 9 0 d ays aft er t he da t e t he pe t it io n w as file d an d docke ted, in this case De cem ber 28, 200 5. Bec aus e of

the tri al court's f ail ure to tim

el y rule on th

e peti tion , pet itio ne r argues tha

t hi s p eti ti on should have been

considered

pursuan t to se cti ons 122 --4thr

ough 122 --6of t he Act. This i ssue presents a question regardi ng the i nterpretat ion of

a statut e; thus, ourr ev iew is de novo . Peo ple v. Do noho , 20 4 I ll. 2d 159, 172 (2003). Additi onally , we review de no vo the trial
co ur t 's di sm

i ssa l of a postconv i cti on petiti

on wi thout an evi den tia ry he ari ng. Pe o ple v. Simms , 192 Ill . 2d 348 , 360 (2 000). Se cti on 12 2- -2 .1 o f

th e A ct prov i de s i n re l ev an t pa rt:No. 2-- 06--0821

-3- "(a) Wi thin 90 days af

ter t he f il in g an d d o ck et ing o f ea ch pe t it io n t he co ur t sha ll examine su ch pe t itio n and e nt er an o rd er t her eo n pur sua nt t o t his Sec t ion.

*** (2) If t he pe t itio ner is sent ence d t o impr isonment and t he co ur t det er mines the pe ti ti on is fr ivo lo us o ris p at en t ly

wi thou t meri t, i t sh al l di sm i ss the pe ti ti on ***. *** (b) If t he pe t itio n is not dismissed p ur sua nt t o t his Sec t ion, t he co ur t shall or der t he pe ti ti on to be docketed for further con si dera ti on i n ac corda n ce wi th Sections 122--4 through 122--6 ." 725 ILCS 5/122 --2.1(a )(2), (b ) (We st 2004 ). T his st atuto ry per io d o f 90 da ys is man da t o ry, a nd t he t r ial c o ur t 's f ailu r e t o co mply w it h t his requi rem en t rend ers i ts di sm i ssa l order void
. People v . Broo ks , 221 Ill . 2d 381, 389 (2 006), citing Pe o ple v. Port er , 122 I ll . 2d 64, 86 (1988 ); see also People v . Vasquez , 307 Ill . App. 3d 670, 672 (1999 ). In t he pre sent c as e, p eti

ti one r' s p eti ti on for postco nvi

ction rel ie f was fi le d on Decem

ber 28, 200 5, and t he t rial co ur t 's ru ling was e nt er ed o n June 26, 200 6. The t rial co ur t 's rulin g w as cle ar ly
m ore th an 90da ys p ast t he da

te of f i l i ng , an d there f ore p eti ti one r wa s enti tl ed to ha ve hi s p eti ti on considered

und er se cti ons 1 22--4 th

rough 122--6of the Act. See Vasquez , 307 Ill . App. 3d at 673. Even if w e were to consider petitioner' s Jan uary 26, 2006, f

il in g as an am

ended peti

tion, the trial
co ur t 's Ju ne 26 , 20 06 , rulin g w as st ill bey ond the 90 d

ays perm i tted und er the statute. See Pe o ple
v. W ats on , 187 Ill . 2d 448, 451 (19 99) ( ho ldin g t ha t , wh en an ame nd ed po st co nvic t io n p et it io n is fi le d dur i ng the i ni ti al 90- da y period, th

e 9 0-day period re sta

rts a nd the trial cou rt has90 d

ay s f rom t he date of the fi

li ng of the am

ended peti

tion to det ermi

ne wh ether it is fri volous or patently

without
meri t).No. 2-- 06--0821

-4-

The Sta te r es po nd s, wit ho ut cit at io n t o au t ho r it y, tha t be ca us e p eti ti one r al so f i l ed a m oti on re que st inga s ubsti

tut ion of judge , the postco nvi

ction petition could n

ot be consi

dered until

it was determi ned which judg e co uld p ro per ly conside r t he pet itio n. The Sta te c onc l ude s th at the p eti ti on co uld not be "docketed" until the substi tut ion m ot ion was decided

and that the 90- da y period di d n ot begi n unti l a fter Apri l 26, 2006. Beyo nd its lac k o f aut hor ity, t he Stat e's position i s meri tless for two reasons. Fir st , t he I llino is sta tutory prov i si ons rel ati ng to su bs ti tutions of j udges do n ot appl y i n p ostc onv

i cti on pro ceedings. Pe o ple v. T homp kins , 181 Il l . 2d 1, 22(1998 ), citing Peop l e v . Wi l son, 37 Il l . 2d 617 , 619-2 1 (196 7). Our su pr eme court hasrecognized some ci rcumstances i

n wh ic h trial judge s shoul

d recuse them

sel ves because o f bi as o r prej udice i n postconv

i cti on proce edi

ngs . Tho mpkins , 1 81 I ll. 2d a t 22, citing W i l son, 37 Ill . 2d at 621 ; Pe o ple v. De l Ve cc hio , 129 Il l . 2d 265 , 274 (1 989). "[O]nly under the most ext r eme cases is di squal if ic ation on the b asi s of b ias or prejudice constitutional ly required
. " Tho mpkins , 181 Ill . 2d at 22, citing Pe o ple v. Colem an , 16 8 I ll. 2d 5 09, 541 (1 995 ). Eve n so , in no ne of the foregoin

g cases does the f

il in g of a motion for subst itu t ion o f judge t oll o r e xt end t he provisi ons of section 122--2.1 o f the A ct, and we declin

e to hold ot herwi se. Second, in Brooks , our supreme cour t s t at ed t hat "[t ]o 'do cke t ' re quir es t hat t he ca use be entered in an off ici al record." Brooks , 221 Ill . 2d at 391. Her e, pet itioner's pro se pos tcon vi cti on pe ti ti on wasstam ped " Fi l ed" by Sal l y D. Cof f el t, ci rcui t cl erk, on

Dece m ber 28, 2 00 5. Unde r t he pr inciples anno unce d in Brooks , petitioner' s case was docketed as of Decem

ber 28, 2005, and was required to have been

exam in ed wi thin 90 days (see 725 ILCS 5/122--2.1(a) (Wes t 200 4) ) o r, in the event t he Ja nu ar y 26 , 20 06 , do cu men t wa s c o nsid er ed t o be an ame nd ed po st co nvic t ion p et itio n, withi n 90 day s of that date (see W ats on , 187 Il l . 2d at 45 1).No. 2-- 06--0821

-5-

B ecause the trial

court acted on petitioner' s postconviction petition bey ond the 90-day dea dlinefo rsu mmar y di smis sa l, it ac t ed wit ho ut au t ho r it y. Con se qu en tl y , pe ti ti on er wa s e n ti tl ed to ha ve his pe t it io n c o nsid er ed un de rse ct io ns 1 22
- - 4 t hr o ug h 1 22
- - 6 o f t he Ac t , an d w e r ema ndt his case f or t hat purpose. For the f oreg oi ng reasons, we re

ve rs e the ord

er of the ci rcu i t cou rt of Lak e Co unt y dismissing petitioner's post conviction pet ition, and we reman d the case for furt her proce edin gs. Reversed a

nd rem anded. McL AR EN an d BYR NE, JJ ., conc

ur.