No. 2-07- 0229 File d: 6-9-10

______________________________________________________________________________ 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 La ke Co un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppel le e, ) ) v. ) No. 03-- CF--239 ) EFRAIN J. MENDE Z, ) Ho no r ab le ) Vic t o r ia A. Ro ss et t i, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ PR ESI DI NG JU STI CEZE

NO FF de l i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: De f en da n t, Ef rai n J . Men dez, a ppea l s f rom a n orde r of th e ci rc ui t cour t o f La ke Co un t y, whi ch summ aril y dismi ssed hi s pro se pe ti

ti on br ough t un de r th e Pos

t-Con vi cti on He ari n g A ct (A ct) (725 ILCS 5/122--1 et seq. (We st 2006 )). Defend ant ar gue s t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d by dismissing his pe ti ti on as fri volous and without merit, because his p et it io n st at ed t he gis t o f a c o nst it ut io na l cla im f ordue proce ss vio lat io ns in co njunct ion wit h t he pr oc eed ings o n his nego t iate d gu ilty plea. We init ially rev ers ed an d re man de d the c as e on

Novem be r 26 , 20 08, ha

vi ng f oun d that d ef en da nt wasnot su fficie nt ly

adm o nished reg ardi

ng th e i m posi tion of m andatory supe rvised releas e (MS R). Pe o ple
v. Mendez , 38 7 I ll. A pp . 3d 31 1 ( 20 08 )
. T he I llino is S up r eme Court is sued a superv is ory order on March 24, 2010, whic

h vacated our Novemb er 26, 2008, opini on and di rected us to reconsi der our de cisio n in light o f Pe o ple v. Mo rr is , 23 6 I ll. 2 d 3 45 ( 20 10 )
. We no w a ffir m. BACK GROUNDNo. 2-- 07--0229

-2-

Defe nda nt was in dicted for aggravated battery wi th a fi rearm (720 ILCS 5/12--4.2(a)(1) (West 2002)), aggravated disch arge of a f irearm (720 ILCS 5/24--1.2(a)( 1) (Wes t 200 2) ), defac ing i de nti f i ca ti on mark s o n a

fi rearm (720 ILCS 5/ 24--5( a) (West 2002)) , and aggravat ed unlawf ul use of a weapon (72 0 IL CS 5/24--1.6(a)(1) , (a)(3)(A) (West 2002)). Defe ndan t entered a negotiated gui l ty pl ea on Marc h 7, 2 003. Th

e term s of the pl ea ag reeme

nt were that defen

dant would pl

ead gui l ty t o c ou nt I (aggr

av ated b attery

wi th a f i re ar m ), i n ex ch an ge f or th e S tate ' s d i sm i ss al of cou n ts II, II I, and IVan

d f or a s en ten ceof 12 y ea rs i n th e D ep artm

en t of Corr ec ti ons . Ne i

the r th e terms of the plea nor the writt en j udgment men tioned MSR. The f oll owing c oll

oquy too k pla

ce at the plea proceedi

ng on March

7, 2003: "THE COURT: Now, t he agree men t is that y ou would be

sen tenc ed to serv

e 12 y ears fr o m [ sic ] t he Departmen

t o f Corrections a

nd that is not at good

ti me or da y f or d ay cr ed i t, b ut y ou h av e to s er v e 8 5 p ercen

t. D o y ou u n ders tan d th at? THE DE FENDANT: Yes. THE CO URT: Y ou wen

t over th at wi

th Mr. C urran [def en se c ouns el]? THE DE FENDANT: Yes. THE CO URT: A

nd th e rem ai ni ng c ha rges would be di sm i sse d. Is that y

our understandi ng? THE DE FENDANT: Yes. * * * THE COU RT : * ** [ T] he way this was cha rged, it is a Cl ass X f

el ony, wh ic h means that i ts p oss i b l e p en al ti es cou l d h av e b een b etw een si x an d th i rty years i n th e D ep artm

en t ofNo. 2-- 07--0229

-3-

Co rr ect ions with three years of m andato ry supervi sed release or what was known as parol e. Do y ou u n ders tan d th at? THE DE FENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Under certai n ci rcum st ances

y ou could rece i

ve an ex tended term
se n te nce. That could m

ean b etween thi

rty and s ix

ty y ears, with three y

ears of m andat or y su pervi se d r el

ea se . D o y

ou u n ders tan d th at? THE DE FENDANT: Yes. T HE COURT: You cannot receiv e probation or conditi onal dis charge or periodic i m pri son men t. That' s ti

me s er v ed i n th e c oun ty ja il . It is a m

andatory sen

tence o f at lea st six yea rs i n th e D ep ar

tmen t of Cor re cti on s. Do y

ou u n ders tan d th at? THE DE FENDANT: Yes. THE COUR

T: Kno win g w ha t t he po ss ible p en alt ies co uld have been on this charge, do you s t ill

wish t o p lead g uilty? THE DE FENDANT: Yes. TH E C OUR T: Again, Mr. Mend ez, you w ent ove r a ll of this w ith Mr . C ur ra n? THE DEF ENDA

NT: Ye s." The reaf ter, t he co ur t ex pl ain ed t ha t , by p lea di ng gu ilt y, de f en da n t wa s w ai v i n g h i s r i gh t to a t rial by ju ry. The court also determi ned that there was no co ercion or additional promi se made t o d efenda nt and that the

re wa s a f actual ba si s to supp ort the pl

ea. The court t hen

ascertain ed that defen

dant was giv in g up hi s righ

t t o a presentence i

nve stigati on and f

ull sentenci ng he arin g, and then i

t added:No. 2-- 07--0229

-4- "THE COUR

T: Howev

er, when you pl ead g

uil ty a nd a gree to the

12 y ears you're t elling me that you do not wis

h to have that

do ne. Yo u wish t o p ro cee d wit h t he sent encing toda y . Is th at c orre ct? THE DE FENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Sir, I wi

ll go alo ng wit h t his. Ju dg men t o f co nvic t io n w ill en ter. You
ar e se nt ence d t o s er ve 12 years in the D epa rt ment o f Cor re ct ions a nd that wil l b e served at 85 percen t. You wil l

get cre di t for th e day

s y ou ha ve serv ed i n the coun

ty j ail ." Th e w ri tten sente nc i ng orde r re f l ec ted the ab ove -quoted

sente nc i ng pron oun ce men t. It di d n ot in clude any reference to MS R. Al most fo ur ye ars l at er, on January 19, 2007, defenda

nt fi le d a pro se pe ti

ti on f or pos tcon vi cti on rel i ef , al l egi ng, int er alia , that t he trial court fai le d to in form hi m that hi s agreed sentence in cl uded a term of M SR. Defen dant stated in the pet itio n t hat he ha d ju st r ec en t ly dis covered

the MSR term, so that "any al le ged i ssue of un

tim el in ess [wa]s n

ot due to de f

en da n ts [ sic ]
cu lpa ble n eg l i gen ce ." A f ter th e tr i al cou rt sum mari l y di sm i ss ed th e p eti t ion on J anuary 31, 2007, defen dant fi le d a tim el y n ot ic e of appeal

on February

21, 2007. AN AL YSIS T his appeal

in volv es the f irst-stage di sm

is sal of def endan t's postco nvi

ction petition. The Act p rovides a p r o ce du r al me t ho d b y wh ich a p er so n u nd er a c r iminal s en t en ce ca n c ha lleng e h is
con vi cti on as be ing t he r esu lt o f a subs t ant ial denial of his r ight s und er t he Consti tution of the Uni

ted States, the Con sti

tution of the State of

Il l i noi s, or b oth. Pe o ple v. Hodges , 234 Il l . 2d 1, 9 ( 2009)
. Under the A ct, the def endan t fi l es a peti tion i n the tri al court wheret he o riginal pr oc eed ingwas hel d. Hodges , 234 Il

l . 2d at 9. A

t th i s f i rs t s tag e, th e p eti

ti onface s a l

ow threshold f

or surviv al and aNo. 2-- 07--0229

-5-

defend ant need presen

t o nl y a l i m i ted

am oun t of detail
. Peop l e v . De l ton , 227 Ill . 2d 247, 254 (2008 ). Section 122- -2.1( a)(2) of the Act pro vides that the tr ial cour t shall

dism iss t he pe t it io n if it "determi nest he pe t it io n is fr ivo lo us o ris p at en t ly without merit." 725 ILCS 5/1 22--2. 1(a)( 2) (West 2008)
. Ou

r s up re me c our

t h as cl ari f i ed th at a p eti

ti on sho uld be f

ound fri volous or patently

without
mer it only if it "has n o arg uabl e basi s either i

n law or in fact." Hodges , 234 Il l . 2d at 16
. "A

pe ti ti on whi ch lac ks an ar gu ab le b as is e it he rin law o r in fact is one which i s based on an i ndi sputably

meri tless le gal theor y or a fanci

ful factual al legation." Hodges , 2 34 I ll. 2d a t 16. The trial cou rt' s d i sm i ss al of a petition a

t t hi s f irst stage i s revi

ewed de no vo . People v . Tor res , 228 Il l . 2d 382 , 394 (2 008). Defend ant argues t hat the t rial cour t err ed in

dism issi ng hi s post convi

ction petition as fri volous or p atently wi

thou t merit, because hi s petiti on stated t he gi st of a constitutional cl ai m. He cla ims that, un

der Pe o ple v. Whit field , 217 Ill . 2d 177 (2005), becau se he wa s no t pr o pe r ly ad mo nis hed

that his prison term

would be

followed b

y a three-year term

of MSR (see

730 I LC S 5/5--8--1(d) (1) (W es t 200 2)) , th e i m pos i ti on of MSR i ncreases the sentence

for whi ch h e bargai ned and, th er ef

ore , bre ach es

h i s a gr eemen t wi th th e S tate and v iolates hi s righ t t o due pro cess of l

aw. Pur su an t to Whit field , de f

en da n t cl ai m s th at th e a pp rop riate

rem edy i s to reduc e hi s prison ter m by t he len gt h o f t he MS R t er m. Re ce nt ly, in Mo rr is , our su pr eme co ur t co nsid er ed t he r et ro ac t ive a pp licat io n o f Whit field to po st co nvic t io npe t it i ons. Mo rr is in volved the appeals

of two defendan

ts (James Morris and Jesse Holborow) fr o m t he ap pe llat e c o ur t s' a ffir man ce s o f t he t r ial c o ur t s' f irs t - st ag e d ismis sa ls of

th eir pos tcon vi cti on peti tions. Mo rr is , 236 Ill . 2d at 348. E ach def endan t argued t hat he h

ad not received t he benefit of t he bar gain he mad e wit h t he Stat e, because h e was no t su fficie nt ly ap pr ise d t ha t his
sen tenc e i nc l uded a term of M SR. Mo rr is , 236 Ill . 2d at 349.No. 2-- 07--0229

-6-

The sup re me co ur t in Mo rr is never re ache d t he issue of t he su fficie ncy of the tr ial

cour ts' admo nitio ns to the def

endan ts under Whit field . See Mo rr is , 236 Il l . 2d at 35 5. Instead i

t addressed t he q ues tion

of w hether Whit field anno unce d a ne w r ule o f law and, if so, whet her re t ro act ive ap pli ca ti on waswarra

nted
. Mo rr is , 23 6 I l l . 2d at 3 55 . Th

e c our t deter m i n ed th at Whit fi eld di d
ann ounce a new rul

e of l aw. Mo rr is , 23 6 Il

l . 2d at 3 60- 61. Pri

or to Whit field , court s f

ound due pro cess vi ola tions wh ere pl ea agreem en ts were not en tered kn owi ngl y and vol unta ri l y . See Mo rr is , 236 Il l . 2d at 36 0. Whit field hel d: "[A]l though substantial

compli ance wi th [Sup reme Co urt] Ru

l e 4 02 i s s uf f i ci en t to establi sh due pro cess [citations], and an im perfect admonish

men t is not reversible erro r unless
rea l jus tice h as been deni ed or t he def

endan t has been

prejudi ced by the in adequat e adm onis hm ent [citation], there i s no subs tantial compl ia nce wi th Rul e 402 and due pro cess is vi olated when

a defe ndan t pleads guilty

in exch ange f or a specif

ic sentence and the trial
cou rt f ai l s to ad v i se th e def en da n t, p rior to ac ce

pti n g h i s p l ea , that a

ma ndatory supervi

sed releaseterm wil

l b e added t o t hat sentence. In t hese ci rcumstances, addi

ti on of the MSR

term to the agree d-u pon sente nc e v i ol at es d ue proce ss b eca

use the s en tenc e i m posed i s m ore onerous than

the on e def endan t agre ed to at th e ti

me of the plea hearin

g. Under t hese circumstances, the

addi ti on of the MSR consti

tut es an unf ai r bre ach of the pl ea agreem

en t." Whit field , 217 Ill . 2d at 195. Af ter con cl udi n g th at Whit field ann

ounced a new rul

e, the supreme

c ourt th en address ed wh ethe r retroacti ve appl i cation of that rul e was appropri ate. Mo rr is , 236 Ill . 2dat 361-62. Under Teague v. La ne , 489 U.S. 288, 103 L. Ed. 2d 334, 10 9 S. Ct. 106 0 (198 9), a new rul e of cri mi nal proce dure ca nno t be ap plie d r et r o ac t ive ly t o ca se s o n c o llat er al r ev iew , un les s ( 1) t he ne w r uleNo. 2-- 07--0229

1 The court also noted that, because Whit field involved c ollat er al review unde r t he Act , t he
co ur t in Whit field shoul d ha ve f orgone a nn ounc i ng th e new rul e the re. Mo rr is , 236 Ill . 2d at 365- 66. -7- le gal iz es prim

ary, pr iv ate in div idua l c onduct, o r (2) absent the new rule, " ' the li kel ih ood o f an
ac cu ra te con vi cti on is seri ously dim in ish ed.' " Mo rr is , 2 36 I ll. 2d a t 359 , q uo t ing Teague , 489 U.S. at 311-13, 103 L. E d. 2d at 35 6- 58 , 10 9 S . Ct . at 10 76
- 77 . De t er mining t ha t t he rule an no un ce d in Whit field met ne i

ther exc epti on, the

court he l d tha

t retroacti

ve appl i cation wa s n

ot warr anted. 1 Mo rr is , 236 Ill . 2d at 363-64. In Mo rr is , because the defendants' convi ctions were f

in al prior to t he Whit field deci si on, they
were not entitled

to appl i cation of i ts ne w rul e. Mo rr is , 236 Ill . 2d at 366. T he court t hen aff irm ed t he jud gme nt s o f t he a pp ellat e c o ur t s, affir ming t he t ria l co ur t s' d ismissa ls o f t he defen dants' postconv i cti on petiti

ons. Mo rr is , 236 Ill . 2d at 368. In the presen

t case, the trial

court accepted

defen dant's gui lty ple a an d e nte red j udg men t of
con vi cti on an d s en t en ce o n Ma r ch 7, 20 03 . De fen da nt t o o k n o dir ec t ap pe al; t he r efo r e, his
con vi cti on wasf i na l wel l be f ore the Whit field deci si on in 2005. See People v . San

ders , 393 Ill . App. 3d 15 2, 16 2 ( 20 09 ) ( a d efe nda nt 's c o nvict io n be co mes fina l for pu rp o se s o f Teague analysis when t he defend ant has ex

hausted an y av ail ab l e di

rect ap peal ), appeal al lowed , 234 Ill . 2d 545 ( 2009). Thus, defend ant i s n

ot en ti tl ed to ap pl i ca ti on of W h i tf

ield . See Mo rr is , 236 I ll . 2d at 366. Because def endan t's e nti re ar gument on a ppe al is pre mised o n Whit field , we af f i rm the tri al court's sum mary dism issal of hi s pro se postco nvi

ction petition. See Mo rr is , 236 Ill . 2d at 368. Fo rt his r ea so n, we af

fir m t he ju dg men t o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f La ke Co un t y.No. 2-- 07--0229

-8-

Af fi rmed. McL AR EN an d SCH OSTOK

, JJ., c oncu

r.