Opinion ID: 2176551
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Defendant's Corrections File

Text: Defendant's final argument is that the appellate court erred in refusing to conduct an independent review of defendant's Corrections file and ascertain the correctness of the trial court's ruling regarding the existence of mitigation evidence. According to defendant, that refusal effectively denied Deleon review of the trial court's ruling, thereby infringing his    constitutional right to appeal. By way of remedy, defendant asks this court to conduct its own review of defendant's Corrections records and to remand the cause for a new sentencing hearing if the file contains additional potentially mitigating evidence. There is a fatal problem with defendant's argument, and it relates to the concession that defendant made in his appellate court motion: defendant's Corrections file is not part of the record on appeal. Rather, the file was returned to the Department of Corrections after the resentencing hearing, and with Corrections it remains. Though the appellate court did not give a reason for denying defendant's motion, this is almost certainly it. The relevant records were not part of the record, and the appellate court therefore had nothing to review, even if it were so inclined. In this court, the State directs our attention to Supreme Court Rules 415(e) and 415(f) (134 Ill.2d Rs. 415(e), (f)). In relevant part, Rule 415(e) states that [m]aterial excised pursuant to judicial order shall be sealed, impounded and preserved in the records of the court, to be made available to the reviewing court in the event of an appeal. 134 Ill.2d R. 415(e). Similarly, Rule 415(f) states that, [i]f the court enters an order granting relief following a showing in camera, the entire record of such showing shall be sealed, impounded, and preserved in the records of the court, to be made available to the reviewing court in the event of an appeal. 134 Ill.2d R. 415(f). The State argues that, having failed to ensure that the undisclosed portion of his Corrections file was sealed, impounded, and preserved in the records of the court, defendant has waived any right to review of the trial court's reading of that file. Defendant responds that nothing in the language of these rules puts the burden on the defendant to assure compliance with this procedure. Rather, [a]s only the trial court had access to the documents, it was its burden to comply with Supreme Court Rule 415. Defendant's argument is precluded by this court's decision in People v. Coates, 109 Ill.2d 431, 94 Ill.Dec. 421, 488 N.E.2d 247 (1985). In that case, the defendant sought to subpoena certain records from the Department of Children and Family Services for purposes of impeachment. Because such records ordinarily are kept confidential, the trial court conducted an in camera inspection of the records. As in this case, neither the State nor defense counsel was present for the inspection. Following the inspection, the trial court allowed the defendant to use only certain portions of the Department's records, keeping the remainder under seal. On appeal, the defendant argued, inter alia, that the trial court erred in failing to comply with Rule 415(f), in that it made no record of the proceedings in camera and failed to seal, impound and preserve the records involved. Coates, 109 Ill.2d at 438, 94 Ill.Dec. 421, 488 N.E.2d 247. This court rejected that argument, stating that [t]he record fails to show that defendant requested any such action, and under the circumstances, there is nothing before us for review. Coates, 109 Ill.2d at 438, 94 Ill.Dec. 421, 488 N.E.2d 247. In other words, and contrary to defendant's argument, the burden to assure compliance with this procedure does rest with the complaining party, at least in the first instance. And absent a request for such compliance, any deficiency in the record will be attributable to that party. The bottom line is that it is the appellant's burden to present a sufficiently complete record of the proceedings below to support a claim of error and, in the absence of a complete record on appeal, it will be presumed that the order entered by the circuit court was in conformity with the law and had a sufficient factual basis. People v. Fair, 193 Ill.2d 256, 264, 250 Ill.Dec. 284, 738 N.E.2d 500 (2000). Here, defendant is asking this court to review the accuracy of the trial court's reading of defendant's Corrections file. However, that file is not part of the record, and defendant never requested that it be made part of the record. Consequently, as in Coates, there is nothing before us for review.