Court Opinion

ID: 9731242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:40:05.246631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:16.398246
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE JONES, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. This court should hold defendant’s post-conviction petition alleging incompetence of trial counsel is barred by res judicata and by waiver. The opinion in the direct appeal reflects that in one of his pro se motions filed prior to sentencing defendant sought leave to withdraw the plea of guilty. In that motion he attacked the competency of his trial counsel by alleging that he had not been apprised of the full consequences of his plea by his attorney, and that he was coerced to plead guilty by his attorney. A new attorney was later appointed to assist defendant in presenting his pro se motions. Defendant also filed another motion pro se styled “Motion for New Trial and Vacating Judgment.” In that motion defendant specifically alleged that he had not been adequately represented by counsel. Defendant’s newly appointed counsel filed a more elaborate motion in which an attack was made upon the quality of representation by defendant’s trial counsel. The foregoing matters were obviously in the record for the direct appeal for were it otherwise no mention of them could have been made in the opinion. Thus, it is also obvious that defendant could have raised the competency of counsel issue in his direct appeal. By failing to do so, he has waived that issue for a post-conviction petition. Although defendant purports to raise some issues in his post-conviction petition that were not of record during the direct appeal, it is obvious that they were matters that were known to him at the time and accordingly should have been included. But the matter goes beyond the waiver stage. Language in the opinion on the direct appeal shows the competency issue was in fact presented to and decided by this court: “Under the circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing leave to withdraw the plea of guilty on the basis of the alleged coercion by, and inadequacies of, trial counsel for the defendant.” (Emphasis added.) 73 Ill. App. 3d 1020, 1022, 392 N.E.2d 772, 774. This language of the opinion plainly shows that the matter of competency was raised and decided in defendant’s direct appeal. The same issue which defendant presents in the post-conviction petition should be held to be barred by res judicata. On the basis of People v. Wade (1970), 47 Ill. 2d 38, 264 N.E.2d 207,I would affirm.