Opinion ID: 2013856
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Quash Subpoena

Text: Prior to filing his amended post-conviction petition, defendant directed a subpoena to the Waukegan police department, calling for the production of [t]he entire police file pertaining to Anthony Enis and/or Melissa Entratta [ sic ]. The circuit court granted the State's motion to quash the subpoena. The court noted that defendant did not allege any discovery violations by the State, and that a post-conviction petition is not a new discovery tactic. Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in granting the State's motion. Because post-conviction proceedings afford only limited review, and because there exists the opportunity for abuse of the discovery process, circuit courts must be cautious in the exercise of their inherent authority to order discovery. People ex rel. Daley v. Fitzgerald, 123 Ill.2d 175, 183, 121 Ill.Dec. 937, 526 N.E.2d 131 (1988). Where a defendant's discovery request has gone beyond the limited scope of post-conviction proceedings and amounted to nothing more than a fishing expedition, this court has upheld the circuit court's denial of the defendant's discovery request. See Olinger, 176 Ill.2d at 370-71, 223 Ill.Dec. 588, 680 N.E.2d 321. Similarly, in determining whether a defendant's request for a pretrial subpoena is justified, Illinois courts will consider whether, inter alia, the defendant's application is made in good faith and whether it is intended as a general fishing expedition. People v. Shukovsky, 128 Ill.2d 210, 225, 131 Ill.Dec. 69, 538 N.E.2d 444 (1988). We believe the same concern applies when a circuit court is faced with a challenge to a defendant's use of a subpoena in post-conviction proceedings. Discovery was conducted in both of defendant's criminal trials. Defendant did not argue in the circuit court that a discovery violation occurred. Defendant also did not claim a Brady violation. Rather, defendant simply argued that there may exist something in the police file that police withheld, which could lead to exculpatory evidence. Under these circumstances we conclude that defendant's subpoena was little more than a fishing expedition and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State's motion to quash. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995), on which defendant relies on appeal, does not support his contention that the circuit court erred. In Kyles, the United States Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that rejected the defendant's claim for federal habeas corpus relief based on a Brady violation. The opinion does not speak to the appropriate scope of discovery, or the requirements for issuance of a subpoena, on post-conviction review. Accordingly, we reject defendant's contention of error.