Court Opinion

ID: 9520122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:31:41.924729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:34.785885
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SPOMER, specially concurring: I agree with my colleague Justice Welch that the trial court’s decision should be affirmed. However, I would use a different analytical framework to reach that conclusion. I believe the plain language of section 122 — 1(d) of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (the Act) (725 ILCS 5/122 — 1(d) (West 2006)), and the cases interpreting it, dictates that once a trial judge determines that a pleading does not specify “in the petition or its heading that it is filed under” section 122 — 1(d) and that the pleading therefore has not properly invoked the Act, the judge may do one of three things. First, the judge may stop right there and rule on the pleading as filed, without evaluating whether the pleading states grounds for relief under the Act. 725 ILCS 5/122 — 1(d) (West 2006) (“A trial court that has received a petition complaining of a conviction or sentence that fails to specify in the petition or its heading that it is filed under this Section need not evaluate the petition to determine whether it could otherwise have stated some grounds for relief under this Article”). By implication, when this approach is taken, the pleading will not be recharacterized as a petition under the Act. Second, the judge may evaluate the pleading to see if it states grounds for relief under the Act and then decline to recharacterize it, either because it does not fit under the Act or for other reasons. Third, the judge may evaluate the pleading to see if it states grounds for relief under the Act and then recharacterize it, which of course triggers the admonishments the Illinois Supreme Court has held in People v. Shellstrom, 216 Ill. 2d 45, 57 (2005), must be given when a pleading is recharacterized as a postconviction petition. In my opinion, under the plain language of the Act, quoted above, if the judge chooses the first course of action described above and declines to evaluate whether the pleading states grounds for relief under the Act (and by implication does not recharacterize it), that choice is nonreviewable. The discretion to do this appears to be, as my colleague Justice Welch states, “unfettered.” 389 Ill. App. 3d at 591. Although one might argue that the specter of the General Assembly creating a mechanism whereby a trial judge, rather than Illinois courts of review, becomes the final arbiter of the decision of whether to evaluate a pleading to determine if it states grounds for relief under the Act raises troubling constitutional questions, the Illinois Supreme Court seems to be have rejected those arguments, having held in Shellstrom that “while a trial court may treat a pro se pleading as a postconviction petition, there is no requirement that the court do so” (emphasis in original) and that “if a pro se pleading alleges constitutional deprivations that are cognizable under the Act[ ] but, as in the case at bar, the pleading makes no mention of the Act, a trial court is under no obligation to treat the pleading as a postconviction petition.” 216 Ill. 2d at 53 n.1. However, I believe that if the judge chooses the second or third course of action described above, and actually evaluates the pleading to see if it states grounds for relief under the Act, then the decision reached following that evaluation, whether the decision is to recharacterize or not to recharacterize, is reviewable under an abuse-of-discretion standard, as my colleague Justice Stewart states. See, e.g., People v. Holliday, 369 Ill. App. 3d 678, 682 (2007) (“[a] trial court’s decision regarding recharacterization is addressed to its sound discretion and will be reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard”); People v. Starks, 365 Ill. App. 3d 592, 597 (2006) (applying an abuse-of-discretion standard to a review of the trial court’s implied construction of defendant’s “motion for a new trial” as a petition under the Act). The key question becomes whether there is evidence in the record that the judge evaluated the pleading, as opposed to simply declined to evaluate it. Often the record will contain no such evidence. In the absence of proof that the judge conducted an evaluation, I would conclude that both the plain language of the Act and the cases interpreting it dictate that we cannot review the judge’s action or inaction. See 725 ILCS 5/122 — 1(d) (West 2006) (“A trial court that has received a petition complaining of a conviction or sentence that fails to specify in the petition or its heading that it is filed under this Section need not evaluate the petition to determine whether it could otherwise have stated some grounds for relief under this Article”); People v. Shellstrom, 216 Ill. 2d 45, 53 n.1 (2005) (there is no requirement that a trial court treat a pro se pleading as a postconviction petition). In the case at bar, no evidence has been presented that the judge engaged in an evaluation of whether the pleading stated grounds for relief under the Act. Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court on that basis. Although my colleague Justice Stewart speculates that this approach “would only lead to trial judges not making a record of their decisionmaking process” (389 Ill. App. 3d at 592), I have faith that our colleagues on the trial bench would continue to take their duties seriously enough not to engage in such subterfuge. Justice Stewart also contends, “[Bjetter policy dictates that the implicit decision of a trial judge not to recharacterize a petition be equally subject to review” (389 Ill. App. 3d at 592). There are two problems with his position: first, it is the province of the General Assembly, not the appellate court, to craft public policy (see, e.g., Reed v. Farmers Insurance Group, 188 Ill. 2d 168, 175 (1999) (the General Assembly occupies a superior position to the judicial branch in determining public policy)), and as noted above, both the General Assembly and the Illinois Supreme Court have already weighed in on this issue; second, as Justice Welch points out, the position advocated by Justice Stewart would effectively require every trial judge to evaluate all pleadings received “to determine whether they should be recharacterized as having been brought under the [Act], in direct contravention of the plain language of section 122 — 1(d).” 389 Ill. App. 3d at 583. Under a different set of circumstances, where it was clear from the record that the trial judge chose to evaluate a pleading to see if it stated grounds for relief under the Act, I would review the decision resulting from that evaluation under an abuse-of-discretion standard. For example, if a judge denied a petition for relief from judgment pursuant to section 2 — 1401 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 1401 (West 2006)) because the petition did not state grounds for relief under 2 — 1401 and the judge stated that he or she also had evaluated the petition and concluded that it did not state grounds for relief under the Act, then, if the petition did in fact state grounds for relief under the Act, I would reverse as an abuse of discretion that judge’s failure to recharacterize it. Because I agree, for the foregoing reasons, that the trial court’s decision in this case should be affirmed, I concur in the result reached by Justice Welch but write separately to explain how I came to that result.