Opinion ID: 2440969
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Patrick Violation

Text: ¶ 19 The appellate court began its analysis of defendant's appeal by stating the following: In this appeal, defendant first contends that the circuit court erred in dismissing his pro se petition as frivolous and patently without merit because he set forth the gist of a claim that the trial court violated his constitutional rights as set forth in People v. Patrick, 233 Ill.2d 62, 330 Ill.Dec. 149, 908 N.E.2d 1 (2009), when it delayed ruling on his motion in limine to exclude evidence of his prior convictions, made pursuant to People v. Montgomery, 47 Ill.2d 510, 268 N.E.2d 695 (1971), until after he had testified.    In Patrick, 233 Ill.2d at 69-73, 330 Ill.Dec. 149, 908 N.E.2d 1, our supreme court held that a trial court's failure to rule on a motion in limine on the admissibility of prior convictions when it has sufficient information to do so constitutes an abuse of discretion and infringes on a defendant's right to testify in his own behalf. 406 Ill.App.3d at 505-06, 347 Ill.Dec. 168, 942 N.E.2d 1. The appellate court then went on to reject this claim, holding, inter alia, that Patrick does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. 406 Ill.App.3d at 508-10, 347 Ill.Dec. 168, 942 N.E.2d 1. ¶ 20 Although the majority of the appellate court's opinion addressed whether defendant had properly raised a  Patrick violation, we have been unable to find any citation to Patrick in defendant's postconviction petition or any contention by defendant that a Patrick violation or Patrick -type violation may be raised for the first time on collateral review. As noted, defendant does allege that counsel was ineffective on direct appeal for not arguing that the trial judge erred when he delayed ruling on defendant's motion in limine. However, the Patrick claim addressed by the appellate court is not contained in defendant's petition. ¶ 21 As this court has stated, `[t]he question raised in an appeal from an order dismissing a post-conviction petition is whether the allegations in the petition, liberally construed and taken as true, are sufficient to invoke relief under the Act.' (Emphasis added.) Thus, any issues to be reviewed must be presented in the petition filed in the circuit court. People v. Jones, 211 Ill.2d 140, 148, 284 Ill.Dec. 287, 809 N.E.2d 1233 (2004) (quoting People v. Coleman, 183 Ill.2d 366, 388, 233 Ill.Dec. 789, 701 N.E.2d 1063 (1998)); see also, e.g., People v. Petrenko, 237 Ill.2d 490, 502, 342 Ill.Dec. 15, 931 N.E.2d 1198 (2010). The appellate court below erroneously reached an issue that was not raised in defendant's postconviction petition. Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the appellate court's opinion which addressed the Patrick violation and held that Patrick does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.