Court Opinion

ID: 9382822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 20:04:14.823849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:41.895290
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in
      the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

                                        2023 IL App (3d) 210541-U

                                  Order filed March 28, 2023
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                   IN THE

                                    APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                             THIRD DISTRICT

                                                    2023

      THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, )                  Appeal from the Circuit Court
                                           )                  of the 12th Judicial Circuit,
           Plaintiff-Appellee,             )                  Will County, Illinois,
                                           )
      v.                                   )                  Appeal No. 3-21-0541
                                           )                  Circuit No. 06-CF-904
                                           )
      KERWIN D. DOSS,                      )                  Honorable
                                           )                  Carmen Goodman,
           Defendant-Appellant.            )                  Judge, Presiding.
      ___________________________________________________________________________

            PRESIDING JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the judgment of the court.
            Justices Brennan and Peterson concurred in the judgment.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                 ORDER

¶1          Held: The defendant’s petition for relief from judgment was untimely, and he failed to
                  show due diligence.

¶2          The defendant, Kerwin D. Doss, appeals the denial of his petition for relief from judgment,

     arguing that this court should sua sponte modify his sentences to run concurrently as the court

     erroneously referred to an incorrect criminal record during sentencing.

¶3                                          I. BACKGROUND
¶4          After a jury trial in July 2007, the defendant was convicted of aggravated vehicular

     hijacking (720 ILCS 5/18-4(a)(2) (West 2006)) and armed robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2) (West

     2006)). The court sentenced the defendant to 28 years and 17 years of imprisonment, respectively.

     The court ordered the sentences to run consecutively. The defendant received day-for-day credit

     and credit for 653 days served. The defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which was

     denied. The defendant had multiple, unsuccessful attempts to challenge his conviction. People v.

     Doss, No. 3-08-0140 (2010) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23) (the defendant’s

     direct appeal); People v. Doss, 2013 IL App (3d) 110334-U (the defendant’s postconviction

     petition); People v. Doss, 3-18-0220 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23) (the

     defendant’s successive postconviction petition).

¶5          In December 2020, the defendant filed a pro se petition for relief from judgment pursuant

     to section 2-1401(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1401(f) (West 2020)).

     He argued, inter alia, that his sentence was void as the sentencing judge erroneously relied on non-

     existent prior convictions in sentencing him to consecutive terms. The defendant argued that he

     had not committed the crimes the court mentioned, and the court must have considered someone

     else’s criminal history.

¶6          The State filed a combined motion to dismiss the petition. 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West

     2020). In May 2021, the court granted the State’s motion to dismiss, finding that the petition was

     untimely and failed to state a cause of action. The defendant filed a motion to reconsider, which

     was denied.

¶7                                             II. ANALYSIS

¶8          On appeal, the defendant argues that the circuit court’s “erroneous consideration in

     aggravation of prior convictions that cannot be attributable to [the defendant] creates a duty for

                                                        2
       this Court to sua sponte modify [his] sentences to run concurrently.”

¶9             Section 2-1401 of the Code provides a procedure permitting vacatur of final judgments and

       orders after 30 days of their entry. People v. Coleman, 206 Ill. 2d 261, 288 (2002); 735 ILCS 5/2-

       1401(a) (West 2020). In order to obtain relief under section 2-1401, the defendant must show (1)

       a defense or claim that would have precluded entry of the judgment in the original action and (2)

       due diligence in discovering the claim and presenting the petition. People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1,

       7-8 (2007). A section 2-1401 petition must be filed within two years after the challenged judgment,

       unless the person seeking relief was under a legal disability or duress or the grounds for relief were

       fraudulently concealed. People v. Pinkonsly, 207 Ill. 2d 555, 562 (2003) (citing 735 ILCS 5/2-

       1401(c) (West 2002)). These requirements do not apply when a defendant seeks to vacate a void

       judgment. People v. Carrasquillo, 2020 IL App (1st) 180534, ¶¶ 35, 43. When a petition for relief

       from judgment presents a fact-dependent challenge, we review the circuit court’s decision on the

       petition for an abuse of discretion. Warren County Soil & Water Conservation District v. Walters,

       2015 IL 117783, ¶ 51.

¶ 10           At the outset, the defendant has abandoned his contention that his sentence is void, as the

       supreme court abolished the void sentence rule in People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, and he

       admits that the circuit court had jurisdiction and the judgment was not based on a facially

       unconstitutional statute. See People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶¶ 29-40. Moreover, he notes

       that he “is not excused for failing to file his 2-1401 petition prior to the two-year statute of

       limitations.” Despite the untimeliness, he asks that we consider his petition in the interest of equity.

¶ 11           Even if we were to excuse the defendant’s untimeliness and consider his petition, he has

       failed to show due diligence. “Due diligence requires the section 2-1401 petitioner to have a

       reasonable excuse for failing to act within the appropriate time.” Smith v. Airoom, Inc., 114 Ill. 2d

                                                          3
       209, 222 (1986). Section 2-1401 “is not intended to relieve a litigant of the consequences of his

       own mistake or negligence.” Warren County Soil & Water Conservation District, 2015 IL 117783,

       ¶ 38. We may consider equitable considerations to relax the applicable due diligence standards in

       limited circumstances. Id. ¶ 51.

¶ 12          Here, the defendant has had ample opportunity to raise this issue. He filed a direct appeal

       and two postconviction petitions, none of which raised the issue. The defendant argues that he

       acted diligently because he originally “focus[ed] on proving his innocence” in his prior appeals,

       and only considered this sentencing issue once his innocence claims were exhausted. This does

       not show due diligence. Because the defendant’s petition was untimely and he failed to show due

       diligence, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition.

¶ 13                                          III. CONCLUSION

¶ 14          For these reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed.

¶ 15          Affirmed.

                                                         4