Court Opinion

ID: 9716661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:47:30.332486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:47.733465
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE FREEMAN, specially concurring: I agree that the doctrine of. res judicata bars this, defendant’s second successive, post-conviction petition. Accordingly, I join in Part I of the above opinion, and it is on this basis that I concur in the conclusion that the circuit court’s judgment must be affirmed. That being the case, I see no legitimate reason to further hold, in Part II, that defendant has not established a violation of the right to the effective assistance of counsel, an analysis that I can only characterize as an “alternative” holding. Such an alternative holding, however, sends a mixed message to both bench and bar — that despite this court’s professed disapproval of successive post-conviction petition filings and despite the fact that the Post-Conviction Hearing Act contemplates the filing of only one petition, we will nevertheless look to the merits of the claim even when res judicata bars relief. Accordingly, I do not join in Part II. In view of my belief that res judicata bars defendant’s petition, I write separately in order to express my thoughts regarding (i) why our decision in Johnson does not support relaxing the res judicata effect of defendant’s first post-conviction proceeding and (ii) the circumstances under which a second post-conviction petition may be proper. I A detailed factual recitation is warranted in light of the important procedural questions which have arisen in this case. Defendant’s original convictions and sentence of death were vacated by this court on direct appeal. See People v. Szabo, 94 Ill. 2d 327 (1983) (Szabo I). On remand, the circuit court reinstated defendant’s convictions, and following a second capital hearing, a jury voted to impose the death penalty. This court affirmed both the convictions and the sentence of death (see People v. Szabo, 113 Ill. 2d 83 (1986) (Szabo II), and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari (Szabo, 479 U.S. 1101, 94 L. Ed. 2d 181, 107 S. Ct. 1330). In August 1987, defendant filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging in part that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel during his second capital sentencing hearing held in 1984. Specifically, defendant claimed that his attorneys, Paul Bjekich and Daniel Doyle, were ineffective for failing to call or conduct any investigation regarding (i) eight named jail and prison officials who were available and willing to testify to defendant’s good behavior while he was incarcerated between 1979 and 1984 and (ii) various experts who would have testified about the effect of defendant’s drug usage on his mental health at the time of the murders. Because these claims were de hors the record at the time of defendant’s direct appeal in Szabo II and therefore could not have been asserted in that appeal, defendant’s presentation of them in a post-conviction petition was proper. See, e.g., People v. Eddmonds, 143 Ill. 2d 501 (1991); People v. Owens, 129 Ill. 2d 303 (1989). Accordingly, the circuit court appointed attorney Lawrence Morrissey to represent defendant during his post-conviction proceedings. Morrissey informed the circuit court that the defense would stand on the pro se petition, and the State moved to dismiss the action. The circuit court denied the State’s motion and held an evidentiary hearing on the petition. The court ultimately denied post-conviction relief, finding, inter alia, that defendant had presented no evidence at the evidentiary hearing to substantiate his claim that Bjekich and Doyle provided ineffective assistance during the 1984 capital sentencing hearing. Defendant again appealed to this court — this time represented by the office of the State Appellate Defender. In that appeal, defendant maintained, among other things, that Morrissey failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 651(c) in representing defendant during the post-conviction proceedings. People v. Szabo, 144 Ill. 2d 525, 531-32 (1991) (Szabo III). Rule 651(c) requires appointed counsel to certify that he or she has made the necessary amendments to a pro se petition so that a petitioner’s contentions are adequately presented to the courts for their consideration of whether post-conviction relief must be granted. See 134 Ill. 2d R. 651(c). This court rejected defendant’s claim, specifically holding that Rule 651(c) had been satisfied and that the “record clearly support[ed] the trial court’s finding of effective assistance of appointed counsel [Morrissey].” The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Szabo, 506 U.S. 832, 121 L. Ed. 2d 59, 113 S. Ct. 99. Defendant, having thus exhausted his state appeals, next initiated federal habeas corpus proceedings. Meanwhile, this court stayed defendant’s execution pending the filing and disposition of defendant’s petition for habeas corpus which was to be filed on April 30, 1993. At that time, defendant was represented by attorneys from the Illinois Capital Resource Center for the office of State Appellate Defender, who began an investigation of the correctional guards named in defendant’s first petition for post-conviction relief. These attorneys also hired a psychological expert to evaluate defendant’s mental health. It was during this time that we announced our decision in People v. Johnson, 154 Ill. 2d 227 (1993). A short while later, defendant’s attorneys filed defendant’s second petition for post-conviction relief on May 20, 1993, the denial of which is the subject of this appeal. The record reveals that in the petition, defendant maintained that our decision in Johnson “dictate [d] that [the circuit] court entertain the present post-conviction petition [because] [l]ike Johnson, [defendant] named in his post-conviction petition prison officials who were available to testify at this sentencing hearing.” Defendant contended that his original post-conviction counsel, Morrissey, “had no strategic reason” for failing to present the evidence regarding the prison officials. He also noted that this second petition was “really nothing more [than] amended petition contemplated by the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, *** being filed expeditiously by the first trial attorneys [defendant] has had since Morrissey left the case.” Defendant asserted that the grounds for post-conviction relief were the failure of Bjekich and Doyle to investigate and present as witnesses (i) the various correctional officials who were willing to testify as to defendant’s good behavior while defendant was incarcerated between 1979 and 1984 and (ii) several psychological experts who would have testified that defendant committed the crime while under extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Attached to the petition were the affidavits of five prison officials and a psychological report prepared by a mental health expert. Notably absent from the petition was any affidavit from Morrissey which explained the reason for his decision not to pursue the issue of the correctional officers’ potential testimonials. The State moved to dismiss defendant’s petition, arguing that the asserted claims had been previously adjudicated in defendant’s initial post-conviction proceeding. Although the State acknowledged that Illinois courts have, in limited cases, allowed the filing of a second petition, the State insisted that defendant’s second petition was devoid of the necessary allegations that would permit a successive filing. The State also contended that concerns of finality prevented a successive petition in this case. In response, defendant admitted that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing had been presented in his initial post-conviction petition. Nevertheless, he maintained that his attorney, Morrissey, had not presented any evidence to substantiate the claim at that proceeding, even though defendant’s pro se petition had identified the potential witnesses by name. Defendant emphasized that although he had identified these witnesses as early as 1987, he “ha[d] never had a chance to present those arguments to any court.” (Emphasis in original.) Thus, according to defendant, Morrissey provided him with “no representation whatsoever regarding the claims relating to the sentencing hearing.” The circuit court denied the State’s motion to dismiss and eventually held the evidentiary hearing described in the majority opinion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court denied defendant’s second petition, and this appeal followed. II The circuit court apparently agreed with defendant that our decision in Johnson “dictates” that the state courts must once again entertain his claims regarding the ineffectiveness of Bjekich and Doyle. Notwithstanding defendant’s characterizations, this petition cannot, in any way, be deemed an “amended” petition. Once this court issued its opinion in Szabo III and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in the matter, there was simply nothing left of defendant’s first petition to amend. Defendant’s post-conviction petition and the claims raised in it were finally adjudicated at that point in time. See People v. Richeson, 50 Ill. 2d 46, 47 (1971). Defendant’s motivation for portraying his second petition as nothing more than an “amended first petition” becomes obvious upon review of this court’s previous holdings with respect to multiple petitions for post-conviction relief. Under Illinois law, successive post-conviction proceedings cannot be used to assail previous post-conviction counsel. In People v. Flores, 153 Ill. 2d 264, 276 (1992), we explained that the sixth amendment right to counsel has not been found to apply to attorneys representing petitioners in post-conviction proceedings. See also Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555, 95 L. Ed. 2d 539, 546, 107 S. Ct. 1990, 1993 (1987). As the majority correctly notes, the reason a sixth amendment right to counsel does not attach in post-conviction proceedings is because a defendant’s right to counsel in the proceedings derives not from the state or federal constitution, but from the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) itself. As a result, post-conviction petitioners are guaranteed only the level of assistance provided by the Act. This court has interpreted the Act to provide only for a “reasonable” level of assistance from their attorneys during these proceedings. See Flores, 153 Ill. 2d at 276. Thus, post-conviction petitioners cannot present claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel based on the sixth amendment in subsequent post-conviction petitions. In addition, “where a defendant files a second or subsequent post-conviction petition wherein he claims ineffective assistance in his first post-conviction proceeding, because the Act is confined to errors which occurred in the original proceeding [the actual trial] only, such claims are beyond the scope of the Act.” Flores, 153 Ill. 2d at 280. Finally, petitioners cannot obtain relief under the Act simply by “rephrasing previously addressed issues in constitutional terms” in their petitions. People v. Gaines, 105 Ill. 2d 79, 90 (1984). In his second post-conviction petition, defendant was careful not to assert a specific claim of ineffectiveness on the part of Morrissey as grounds for granting relief under the Act. His action was prudent — the above-noted case-law teaches us that such a claim would fall outside the scope of the Act.1 Only those claims which assert a deprivation of a constitutional right which occurred at trial fall within the ambit of the Act. Defendant’s second petition, however, once again mentions Morrissey’s failure, during the first proceeding, to comply with Rule 651(c) and his failure to substantiate defendant’s pro se allegations, although defendant does not ground his request for post-conviction relief on these purported shortcomings. Rather, he identifies only Bjekich and Doyle’s (the 1984 sentencing attorneys) purported ineffectiveness as the actual basis for the relief. This bootstrapping explains why defendant chose to characterize the second petition as an amendment — any subsequent petition which solely challenged Morrissey’s performance would not meet the criteria for relief under the Act. Moreover, the operation of res judicata would bar any second petition which attempted solely to relitigate the Bjekich/Doyle claim, for that very issue had been adjudicated against defendant at the initial post-conviction proceeding. In the words of the trial judge who denied the petition, “no evidence [was] presented in connection with [the] substantiation of that [ ]claim.” We affirmed that finding on appeal, rejecting defendant’s argument that Morrissey had failed to comply with Rule 651(c). This determination ordinarily will bar, under the doctrine of res judicata, any successive claim concerning Morrissey’s failure to substantiate defendant’s pro se allegations concerning the prison guards. In fact, this court very recently reaffirmed this basic tenet of post-conviction jurisprudence in People v. Erickson, 183 Ill. 2d 213 (1998) (foreclosing relitigation of defendant’s failure to investigate claim in a second post-conviction proceeding where defendant had raised same claim in a first petition). Apparently mindful of these rather well-settled principles, defendant now attempts to use our decision in Johnson in order to skirt the res judicata effect of our decision in Szabo III and to avoid the conclusion that defendant’s second petition is, in reality, nothing more than an improper challenge to Morrissey’s performance at the first post-conviction proceedings. Although the majority rightly rejects this argument (see 186 Ill. 2d at 25), I would add the following observations to the analysis. In my view, nothing in our opinion in Johnson allows Morrissey’s performance in the first post-conviction proceedings to form the basis for relief in a second proceeding. As an initial matter, I strongly question the propriety of relying on a case decided after a defendant has completed post-conviction review in order to allow that same defendant to renew claims which had, up until that point in time, been finally adjudicated. Johnson did not announce a new rule of constitutional law to which one might argue necessitates retroactive application. Rather, the case concerned only an interpretation of one of this court’s own rules. Moreover, unlike the present case, defendant Johnson’s appeal came before this court upon the dismissal, without an evidentiary hearing, of his first post-conviction petition. Johnson, 154 Ill. 2d at 234. Therefore, this court was not presented with the procedural concerns which arise whenever a subsequent petition is filed, and, as a result, those concerns were necessarily absent from our analysis. Notwithstanding this important distinction, the specific facts in Johnson serve to further differentiate it from the case at bar. While Johnson’s petition had been pending before the circuit court, Johnson’s appointed counsel failed to support the pro se allegations with affidavits or other supporting documents, despite the fact that Johnson had specifically identified both witnesses and documents which would have supported the allegations raised in the petition. Johnson, 154 Ill. 2d at 239. Appellate counsel then filed a supplemental record on appeal in this court which contained the affidavit of Johnson’s post-conviction trial attorney. In this affidavit, counsel admitted that he did not attempt to contact or obtain affidavits from any of the prison employees named in the pro se petition. Nor did he attempt to review the documents to which Johnson had referred. Johnson, 154 Ill. 2d at 245-47. Based on the allegations contained in the affidavit, appellate counsel argued that post-conviction counsel could not be said to have complied with Rule 651. We agreed, determining from the affidavit that post-conviction counsel made no effort at all to contact the witnesses specifically identified by name in Johnson’s pro se petition even though he had an obligation to do so under Rule 651(c). In addition, the record in Johnson “suggest[ed] that counsel may have been under the misapprehension that the post-conviction petition would not [have been] dismissed without an evidentiary hearing. Counsel may have believed that there was no need to contact witnesses named in the post-conviction petition until after the matter was set for an evidentiary hearing.” Johnson, 154 Ill. 2d at 248-49. For this reason, we concluded that a remand was necessary to give counsel the opportunity to contact the witnesses named in the post-conviction petition. In this way, the circuit court could then reconsider the State’s motion to dismiss the petition on the basis of a properly developed record. Johnson, 154 Ill. 2d at 249. In contrast, I note that no affidavit from attorney Morrissey has ever been made a part of the record in this case. Defendant’s present attorneys merely attached the affidavits of the prison guards themselves to the self-styled “amended” petition. As a result, we today do not know the reasons behind Morrissey’s decision not to produce evidence of the guards’ opinions regarding defendant’s behavior while incarcerated. Consequently, we have no objective basis on which to conclude, as we did in Johnson, that Morrissey did not meet his obligation under Rule 651(c). More importantly, no such affidavit was supplemented to the record when the matter of Morrissey’s failure to contact these witnesses was first presented to this court in Szabo III back in 1991. Therefore, this court in 1991 did not know the reason behind Morrissey’s decision not to seek out affidavits from the guards and, as a result, we could not grant defendant in 1991 the type of relief we ultimately granted to Johnson in 1993. In light of these facts, Johnson simply does not provide this court with the proper basis for relaxing the res judicata effect of our previous holding in Szabo III. Ill In order to maintain a consistent body of law in the area of post-conviction review, the threshold question that must be addressed in this case is whether the doctrine of res judicata can, in any way, be relaxed so that this court can legally and legitimately reach the merits of defendant’s claim that Bjekich and Doyle failed to investigate and offer the testimony of the guards at the 1984 sentencing hearing. After reviewing the precedent of this court, I conclude that, absent a radical departure from our previous holdings, we cannot do so in this case. This court has long recognized that the Act provides a statutory remedy to criminal defendants who claim that substantial violations of their constitutional rights occurred at trial. People v. Eddmonds, 143 Ill. 2d 501, 510 (1991) (and cases cited therein). As such, a proceeding under the Act is not an appeal per se but, rather, a collateral attack on a final judgment. People v. Ruiz, 132 Ill. 2d 1, 9 (1989). Thus, where a petitioner has previously taken a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction, the ensuing judgment of the reviewing court will bar, under the doctrine of res judicata, post-conviction review of all issues actually decided by the court, and any other claims that could have been presented to the reviewing court will be deemed waived. People v. Neal, 142 Ill. 2d 140, 146 (1990). Moreover, section 122 — 3 of the Act specifically states that “[a]ny claim of substantial denial of constitutional rights not raised in the original or an amended petition is waived.” 725 ILCS 5/122 — 3 (West 1992). Accordingly, this court has held, consistent with its own precedent and the statutory language of the Act, that a ruling on an initial post-conviction petition has res judicata effect with respect to all claims that were raised or could have been raised in the initial petition. People v. Free, 122 Ill. 2d 367, 376 (1988). Nevertheless, this court has not deemed section 122 — 3 to be an ironclad bar on multiple post-conviction petitions and has, in the past, allowed successive filings when the proceedings on the original petitions were said to be deficient in some fundamental way. See, e.g., People v. Nichols, 51 Ill. 2d 244, 246 (1972); People v. Hollins, 51 Ill. 2d 68, 70 (1972); People v. Slaughter, 39 Ill. 2d 278 (1968). I note that Justice Harrison’s dissent posits that “[t]he criteria for establishing that the first proceeding was deficient is not set forth with any precision in our case law” (186 Ill. 2d at 46 (Harrison, J., dissenting)); however, this is, in fact, not an entirely accurate statement. In Flores, this court undertook a thorough examination of the various situations in which a defendant will attempt to bring a successive petition. After reviewing our precedent and the language of the Act, we held without dissent that “[t]he Act does not *** provide a forum to test the propriety of conduct at an earlier post-conviction proceeding. Thus, where a petitioner files a second or subsequent post-conviction petition wherein he claims ineffective assistance in his first post-conviction proceeding, consideration of those claims is beyond the scope of the Act.” Flores, 153 Ill. 2d at 277. In so holding, we necessarily overruled, sub silentio, People v. Hollins, 51 Ill. 2d 68, 70 (1972), and People v. Slaughter, 39 Ill. 2d 278 (1968), at least to the extent that those cases suggest that inadequate representation at the prior proceeding — standing alone — constitutes a fundamental deficiency. Implicit in our holding in Flores is the recognition that the “fundamental deficiency” alleged to have occurred in the prior proceeding must flow from something other than the purported ineptitude or inadequacy of the prior post-conviction attorney. To hold otherwise would allow the fundamental-deficiency exception to res judicata to swallow the general proscription against the use of successive petitions to assail the conduct of post-conviction counsel. In addition, although we acknowledged in Flores that concerns of “fundamental fairness” colored the inquiry into whether a first post-conviction proceeding was fundamentally deficient, we also specifically spoke to a “ ‘cause and prejudice’ ’•’ evaluation to be applied in such circumstances. See Flores, 153 Ill. 2d at 279; People v. Whitehead, 169 Ill. 2d 355, 407 (1996) (Miller, J., specially concurring). We further recognized that, even in the absence of cause and prejudice, a court may, “nonetheless, entertain successive claims if necessary to prevent a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Flores, 153 Ill. 2d at 279.1 note that the United States Supreme Court has stated that this latter exception serves “as ‘an additional safeguard against compelling an innocent man to suffer an unconstitutional loss of liberty’ [citation], guaranteeing that the ends of justice will be served in full.” McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495, 113 L. Ed. 2d 517, 546-47, 111 S. Ct. 1454, 1471 (1991). In acknowledging these standards, we attempted in Flores to formulate objective guidelines to which the lower courts could turn in determining what constitutes a fundamental deficiency in prior post-conviction proceedings. In light of the guidelines recognized in Flores, I do not believe defendant’s allegations warrant a finding that his first post-conviction proceeding was deficient in some fundamental way. I must point out that this is not a case in which defendant’s first post-conviction petition was cursorily dismissed by the circuit court without an evidentiary hearing. Rather, defendant was allowed to litigate his claims in an evidentiary hearing. Defendant thus received an unrestricted opportunity during his first post-conviction proceeding to develop his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant’s second petition alleges that Morrissey “had no strategic reason” for failing to present the evidence of the correctional officers. Moreover, when the State countered that defendant’s petition was devoid of the necessary allegations which would permit a successive filing, defendant responded — along the same lines contained in his petition — that Morrissey provided him with “no representation whatsoever regarding the claims relating to the sentencing hearing.” In essence, these allegations amount to nothing more than a challenge to the performance of his first post-conviction attorney. In my opinion, they do not establish “cause” for a finding of a fundamental deficiency in the prior proceeding as contemplated in Flores.2 See also Antone v. Dugger, 465 U.S. 200, 79 L. Ed. 2d 147, 104 S. Ct. 962 (1984) (holding second successive habeas corpus petition improper despite argument that previous habeas counsel had inadequately and hastily prepared prior petition). Defendant’s allegations lead only to the inescapable conclusion that this case presents this court with the very type of prior post-conviction proceeding that we, in Flores, specifically refused to recognize as “fundamentally deficient.” See Flores, 153 Ill. 2d at 282 (holding such claims to be beyond the scope of the Act). As such, defendant’s second request for post-conviction relief should have been denied by the circuit court on the grounds that it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. In my view, the fact that the circuit judge in this case failed to recognize defendant’s second petition as an invalid successive filing does not mean that this court is required on appeal to follow suit. For this reason and the reasons set forth above, I concur in Part I of the majority’s analysis.  defendant’s contention, however, that Morrissey “had no strategic reason” for not undertaking an investigation of the named guards does have the familiar ring of a Strickland claim, i.e., counsel’s decision to forgo the investigation was objectively unreasonable, as it was neither the product of an informed judgment nor a strategic decision reached after weighing all available options. As noted above, such a sixth amendment based claim is not cognizable under the Act.   Cause, I note, has been defined as “ 1 “some objective factor external to the defense [that] impeded counsel’s efforts” to raise the claim’ in an earlier proceeding.” Flores, 153 Ill. 2d at 279, quoting McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 493, 113 L. Ed. 2d 517, 544, 111 S. Ct. 1454, 1470 (1991), quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488, 9 L. Ed. 2d 397, 408, 106 S. Ct. 2639, 2645 (1986). Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has identified objective factors that constitute cause to include “ ‘ “interference by officials” ’ that makes compliance with the State’s procedural rule impracticable, and ‘a showing that the factual or legal basis for a claim was not reasonably available to counsel.’ [Citation.] In addition, constitutionally ‘[ineffective assistance of counsel ... is cause.’ [Citation.] Attorney error short of ineffective assistance of counsel, however, does not constitute cause ***.” McClesky, 499 U.S. at 493-94, 113 L. Ed. 2d at 544, 111 S. Ct. at 1470.