Court Opinion

ID: 9862100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 01:00:58.802328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:30:02.231392
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COOK, dissenting: I respectfully dissent and would reverse and remand the dismissal of defendant’s amended petition for postconviction relief. As the majority recognizes, compliance with Rule 402(a) requires that a defendant pleading guilty be admonished that the period of mandatory supervised release is a part of the sentence that will be imposed. Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d at 188, 840 N.E.2d at 665. The requirement is an affirmative one that generally cannot be forfeited. A failure to object does not constitute forfeiture. “[I]t would be incongruous to hold that defendant forfeited the right to bring a postconviction claim because he did not object to the circuit court’s failure to admonish him. To so hold would place the onus on defendant to ensure his own admonishment is in accord with due process.” Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d at 188, 840 N.E.2d at 666. Nor is there a procedural default because a defendant does not raise the improper-admonishment claim in a motion to withdraw his guilty plea or in a direct appeal. Where the defendant did not learn of the problem until later, “he could not have raised the error in a motion to withdraw his plea or a direct appeal.” Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d at 188, 840 N.E.2d at 666. The majority distinguishes Whitfield on the basis that the defendant there did not file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea or a direct appeal. Defendant here filed both a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and a direct appeal, and although “he could have raised his improper-admonishment claim in connection with each, he did not.” 365 Ill. App. 3d at 289. The majority misreads Whitfield. The supreme court in Whitfield did not attempt to distinguish between defendants who file motions and direct appeals and defendants who do not. The supreme court considered a defendant who “did not raise the issue in a motion to withdraw his guilty plea or in a direct appeal.” (Emphasis added.) Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d at 188, 840 N.E.2d at 665. A defendant who files a motion that does not mention an issue fails to raise the issue just as a defendant who files no motion at all. A defendant who files a direct appeal that does not mention an issue fails to raise the issue just as a defendant who takes no appeal at all. Once a defendant learns of an improper-admonishment claim, however, he is required to raise it. Defendant raised the improper-admonishment claim here when he filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief on December 15, 2003. Nevertheless, OSAD, on March 24, 2004, moved to withdraw as defendant’s appellate counsel in his direct appeal on the basis no colorable argument could be made. Assuming the majority’s argument that OSAD forfeited the issue by failing to raise it on direct appeal has any validity, OSAD’s “forfeiture” cannot bind defendant here. OSAD was clearly ineffective in moving to withdraw, either in failing to confer with defendant regarding his allegations, or in failing to raise those allegations in the appeal. The majority complains that defendant failed to file additional points and authorities when OSAD moved to withdraw, but that argument has been properly rejected. People v. Jones, 364 Ill. App. 3d 1, 5 (2005). We cannot avoid ineffective-assistance-of-counsel issues by complaining that defendant should have known better than his attorney. The majority recognizes that forfeiture does not apply where the forfeiture stems from the incompetence of appellate counsel but complains that “[djefendant [OSAD] does not make arguments in connection with any of these recognized exceptions and, thus, we do not consider them.” 365 Ill. App. 3d at 289. OSAD’s failure to raise a claim that it was ineffective on the direct appeal is excused. People v. Coulter, 352 Ill. App. 3d 151, 155, 815 N.E.2d 899, 903 (2004) (OSAD’s argument that it could not be expected to raise its direct appeal ineffectiveness in the postconviction petition was rejected, where OSAD did not file the postconviction petition). It would be unreasonable to expect appellate counsel to raise and argue his own incompetency. People v. Gaines, 105 Ill. 2d 79, 91, 473 N.E.2d 868, 875 (1984). Defendant is whipsawed in this case. The majority says that his improper-admonishment argument could have been raised on direct appeal because he had already raised it in his postconviction petition. Then the majority says that the postconviction petition cannot be considered because the issue could have been raised on direct appeal.