2024 IL App (4th) 230445-U 

NO. 4-23-0445 

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v. 

JUSTIN M. HAGEMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

Tazewell County 

No. 16CF628 

Honorable 

Christopher R. Doscotch, 

Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court. 

 Justices Harris and Lannerd concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court reversed and remanded for the appointment of new 

postconviction counsel and further second-stage postconviction proceedings, 

concluding defendant was denied reasonable assistance from his previously 

appointed postconviction counsel.

¶ 2 Defendant, Justin M. Hageman, appeals from the circuit court’s judgment 

dismissing his amended postconviction petition at the second stage of postconviction proceedings. 

On appeal, defendant argues this court should reverse and remand for the appointment of new 

postconviction counsel and further second-stage postconviction proceedings because his 

postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance by failing to allege facts showing his 

postconviction petition was timely filed. For the reasons that follow, we agree and reverse and 

remand for the appointment of new counsel and further second-stage proceedings. 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In 2017, defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 

NOTICE

This Order was filed under 

Supreme Court Rule 23 and is 

not precedent except in the 

limited circumstances allowed 

under Rule 23(e)(1). 

FILED

May 31, 2024

Carla Bender

4th District Appellate

Court, IL
- 2 - 

5/11-1.30(a)(2) (West 2016)) and aggravated domestic battery (id. § 12-3.3(a-5)) and was 

sentenced to a total of 22 years in prison.

¶ 5 In 2020, the Third District affirmed on direct appeal. People v. Hageman, 2020 IL 

App (3d) 170637, 146 N.E.3d 793. Defendant filed a petition for leave to appeal, which our 

supreme court denied on May 27, 2020. People v. Hageman, No. 125774 (Ill. May 27, 2020).

¶ 6 In 2021, defendant initiated a proceeding for relief under the Post-Conviction 

Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 to 122-7 (West 2020)). Defendant filed his pro se 

postconviction petition on March 19, 2021. The petition advanced to the second stage of 

postconviction proceedings, and defendant was appointed postconviction counsel. Postconviction 

counsel later filed an amended postconviction petition. 

¶ 7 In 2022, the State filed a motion to dismiss defendant’s amended postconviction 

petition, arguing, in pertinent part, it was untimely. In response, defendant’s postconviction 

counsel filed an amended postconviction petition, asserting any untimeliness was not due to 

defendant’s culpable negligence. The State, in reply, filed an amended motion to dismiss, 

addressing the timeliness response from defendant. 

¶ 8 In 2023, defendant’s postconviction counsel filed a certificate of compliance with 

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 651(c) (eff. July 1, 2017), and the circuit court held a hearing on the 

State’s amended motion to dismiss defendant’s amended postconviction petition. Following the 

hearing, the court dismissed defendant’s postconviction petition solely on timeliness grounds.

¶ 9 This appeal followed.

¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 11 On appeal, defendant argues this court should reverse and remand for the 

appointment of new postconviction counsel and further second-stage postconviction proceedings 
- 3 - 

because his postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance by failing to allege additional 

facts showing his amended postconviction petition was timely filed. The State agrees.

¶ 12 The Act “provides a mechanism by which a criminal defendant can assert that his 

conviction and sentence were the result of a substantial denial of his rights under the United States

Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, or both.” People v. English, 2013 IL 112890, ¶ 21, 987 

N.E.2d 371. A defendant who is represented by counsel in proceedings under the Act is entitled to 

“a ‘reasonable’ level of attorney assistance.” People v. Johnson, 2018 IL 122227, ¶ 16, 123 N.E.3d 

1083. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 651(c) (eff. July 1, 2017) requires postconviction counsel to, 

amongst other things, make any amendments necessary for an adequate presentation of the 

defendant’s claims. People v. Custer, 2019 IL 123339, ¶ 32, 155 N.E.3d 374. Counsel’s 

certification of compliance with Rule 651(c) creates a rebuttable presumption counsel provided 

the defendant with a reasonable level of assistance. Id.

¶ 13 As is relevant to defendant’s claim of unreasonable assistance of postconviction 

counsel, the Act provides the following deadlines for the filing of a postconviction petition:

“No proceedings under this Article shall be commenced more than 

6 months after the conclusion of proceedings in the United States 

Supreme Court, unless the petitioner alleges facts showing that the 

delay was not due to his or her culpable negligence. If a petition for 

certiorari is not filed, no proceedings under this Article shall be 

commenced more than 6 months from the date for filing a certiorari

petition, unless the petitioner alleges facts showing that the delay 

was not due to his or her culpable negligence.” 725 ILCS 5/122-1(c) 

(West 2020).
- 4 - 

¶ 14 Ordinarily, a certiorari petition must be filed within 90 days after entry of an order 

denying discretionary review by a state court of last resort. U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 13. However, in 

response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this deadline was extended to 150 days from the date of the 

order denying discretionary review. 589 U.S. ___ (Mar. 19, 2020), available at 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/announcements/covid-19.aspx. This extended deadline applied 

from March 19, 2020, to July 19, 2021. 594 U.S. ___ (July 19, 2021), available at

https://www.supremecourt.gov/announcements/covid-19.aspx. 

¶ 15 In this case, our supreme court issued its order denying discretionary review on 

May 27, 2020. Hageman, No. 125774. Defendant, as a result, had to file any certiorari petition by 

October 27, 2020, to comply with the extended 150-day deadline. Absent the filing of a certiorari

petition, defendant had to file any postconviction petition by April 27, 2021, to comply with the 

six-month deadline from the date for filing a certiorari petition. With the filing of a certiorari 

petition, defendant had to file any postconviction petition within six months following “the 

conclusion of proceedings in the United States Supreme Court.” 725 ILCS 5/122-1(c) (West 2020).

¶ 16 Defendant filed his postconviction petition on March 19, 2021. Defendant averred 

in a handwritten affidavit attached to his amended postconviction petition he filed a certiorari

petition on December 7, 2020, which was then “denied” on December 17, 2020. If, for purposes 

of the deadlines set forth in the Act, the certiorari petition filed outside the 150-day deadline is 

considered to have commenced a proceeding in the United States Supreme Court and the denial of 

it is considered to be the conclusion of said proceeding, defendant’s postconviction petition would 

be timely filed because it was filed within six months from the denial of the certiorari petition. 

Alternatively, if the filing of a late certiorari petition operates as if no petition had been filed for 

purposes of the deadlines set forth in the Act, defendant’s postconviction petition would be timely 
- 5 - 

filed because it was filed within the six-month deadline from the date for filing a certiorari petition. 

Under either provision of the Act, defendant’s postconviction petition was timely filed. 

¶ 17 Defendant’s postconviction counsel, in response to the State’s motion to dismiss 

defendant’s amended postconviction petition on timeliness grounds, did not allege these additional 

facts showing defendant’s petition was timely filed. Therefore, the record shows, contrary to the 

Rule 651(c) certificate, counsel failed to make amendments to defendant’s petition necessary for 

an adequate presentation of his claims. See People v. Walker, 2018 IL App (3d) 150527, ¶ 31, 93 

N.E.3d 734 (“In the postconviction context, [counsel is] require[d] *** to allege available facts to 

overcome the procedural bar of timeliness.”). Counsel’s performance amounts to unreasonable 

assistance. Given counsel’s performance and the fact the circuit court dismissed defendant’s 

amended postconviction petition solely on timeliness grounds, we find it appropriate to reverse 

and remand for the appointment of new postconviction counsel and further second-stage

postconviction proceedings.

¶ 18 III. CONCLUSION 

¶ 19 For the reasons stated, we reverse and remand for the appointment of new 

postconviction counsel and further second-stage postconviction proceedings.

¶ 20 Reversed; cause remanded.