Opinion ID: 2241961
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Failure to Grant Motion Seeking Substitution of Judge

Text: Defendant next maintains that the trial court erred in not granting his motion for substitution of judge or, alternatively, in not transferring the motion to another judge for ruling. Defendant claims that the trial judge, who at one point admonished defense counsel not to use the already delayed post-conviction proceedings as a further delay tactic to stop the imposition of what the Illinois Supreme Court has said was a fair trial, a fair verdict, a fair death sentence after a fair death hearing, had prejudged the merits of defendant's amended petition for post-conviction relief. We disagree. It is well settled that [t]here is no absolute right to a substitution of judge at a post-conviction proceeding. People v. Hall, 157 Ill.2d 324, 331, 193 Ill.Dec. 98, 626 N.E.2d 131 (1993), citing People v. House, 202 Ill.App.3d 893, 910, 148 Ill.Dec. 627, 560 N.E.2d 1224 (1990), citing People v. Wilson, 37 Ill.2d 617, 230 N.E.2d 194 (1967). Rather, the same judge who presided over the defendant's trial should hear his post-conviction petition, unless it is shown that the defendant would be substantially prejudiced. Hall, 157 Ill.2d at 331, 193 Ill.Dec. 98, 626 N.E.2d 131 (citing People v. Mamolella, 42 Ill.2d 69, 73, 245 N.E.2d 485 (1969), People v. Neal, 123 Ill.App.3d 148, 152, 78 Ill.Dec. 695, 462 N.E.2d 814 (1984), and People v. Day, 152 Ill.App.3d 416, 421, 105 Ill. Dec. 694, 504 N.E.2d 979 (1987)). The record here discloses that defendant filed his pro se petition for post-conviction relief on April 9, 1986. The matter, which was originally assigned to another judge, was continued for various reasons over the course of the next five years. During that time, post-conviction counsel repeatedly represented to the court that an amended petition would be filed. Eventually, the matter was reassigned to the current judge. Although counsel again reassured the court that an amended petition would be forthcoming, nearly two more years passed before the amendment was actually filed. Consequently, when the trial judge warned counsel not to further prolong the proceedings, the trial judge was not prejudging the merits of defendant's amended petition for post-conviction relief, as defendant suggests. Rather, the trial judge was merely expressing his understandable frustration with the progress of the case. Furthermore, we have carefully reviewed the transcript in this respect, and can find no evidence of any bias on the part of the circuit court in this matter. Under these circumstances, we simply do not believe that the trial judge abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion for substitution of judge.