Court Opinion

ID: 9735600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:25:30.463588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:00.328967
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, dissenting: The record here clearly indicates that the trial judge was influenced by and improperly relied on the State’s premature motion in deciding to dismiss defendant’s pro se post-conviction petition. For this reason, I cannot join the majority’s affirmance. I agree with dissenting Justice Chapman of the appellate court. See No. 5 — 93—0816 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). The trial judge here was influenced by and relied on the State’s motion and, thus, dismissal of defendant’s pro se petition was improper. On August 6, 1993, defendant filed her pro se post-conviction petition, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The petition was supported by seven affidavits from herself, her relatives, and two attorneys, attesting to the fact that a witness had made exculpatory statements. To be sufficient at this initial stage of the post-conviction process, defendant’s pro se petition only needed to clear a low threshold by presenting the gist of a constitutional claim. People v. Porter, 122 Ill. 2d 64, 74 (1988). In ruling on the petition at this stage, the trial court only needed to determine that the petition was not frivolous or patently without merit. See 725 ILCS 5/122 — 2.1 (West 1992). No evidentiary hearing was authorized at this stage. See 725 ILCS 5/122 — 6 (West 1992). Five days later, the State prematurely filed a motion to dismiss, utilizing boilerplate language and terminology suited for requesting dismissal at a later stage in the post-conviction process. Because the defendant’s right to counsel had not yet attached at this stage of the process, the State was not permitted to be actively represented. See People v. Rutkowski, 225 Ill. App. 3d 1065 (1992); People v. Merritte, 225 Ill. App. 3d 986 (1992). The State’s motion claimed that the petition failed to meet a higher standard than that required at that particular stage of the process. Thus, the motion stated "defendant’s petition fails to present a substantial showing of a violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights.” The motion also requested that the petition be dismissed "without an evidentiary hearing.” Presumably, the trial judge, knowing the law, would not consider the motion. On November 1, 1993, the trial court issued an order dismissing the petition, concluding that it was frivolous and patently without merit. Interestingly, the order, like the State’s motion, referred to a standard of sufficiency appropriate to a later stage of post-conviction process. Interestingly, also, the order referred to this standard by means of a statement nearly identical to the State’s statement of the standard in its motion. Thus, the order stated "defendant’s petition fails to present a substantial showing of violation of defendant’s constitutional rights.” The order’s statement of the standard was also more similar to the motion’s statement of the standard than to the statutory standard, itself. See 725 ILCS 5/122 — 1 (West 1992) (referring to "a substantial denial of his rights under the Constitution”). The majority explains that this similarity involves merely "general terminology that is common in post-conviction proceedings.” 174 Ill. 2d at 422. I strenuously disagree. The similarity involves practically a word-for-word statement of an untimely procedural standard in terms more closely parallel to those in the State’s motion than to those in the statute. In addition to this similarity, the order also inappropriately stated, just like the State’s motion inappropriately requested, that dismissal of the petition was "without an evidentiary hearing.” The majority explains the curious appearance of this inappropriate language within the order as no more than the response to the petitioner’s request for a hearing. 174 Ill. 2d at 422. The problem, however, is that the court need not have responded to the request. Even if the court had not dismissed the petition, petitioner’s request for a hearing could not have been granted at this stage in the proceedings (see 725 ILCS 5/122 — 5, 122 — 6 (West 1992)), so the court’s statement was surplusage. To accept the majority’s explanations would mean that it was simply coincidental that the State’s motion was similar to the trial judge’s order. I find that hard to believe. These two language and untimely procedural reference similarities clearly suggest to me that the trial judge was influenced by the State’s motion. That being the case, I am not persuaded that the other two similarities noted by petitioner are tenuous as the majority believes. The remaining similarities, rather, strengthen the petitioner’s case. The State’s motion stated that "the Post-Conviction Hearing Act is not designed to relitigate the defendant’s guilt or innocence established in the jury trial proceedings” and that "the defendant’s petition is barred by the doctrine of res judicata in that all claims which were raised or which could have been raised on appeal are waived and cannot be raised in a post-conviction proceeding.” The order stated that "[t]he question of sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence is res judicata, having already been determined by the Appellate Court. The issue of incompetency of counsel is waived, being an issue that should have or could have been raised on direct appeal.” The finding that the issue of incompetency of counsel was waived was legally incorrect, however, because a waiver exception applied in this case. The majority explains that the order drew its statement regarding evidentiary sufficiency being res judicata, not from the State’s motion, but from the petition’s allegations in general. 174 Ill. 2d at 421. The petition, however, specifically raised only the issue of the ineffectiveness of trial counsel. The majority does not explain at all the similarity between the order’s incorrect legal finding of waiver and the State’s motion urging waiver. The majority simply sidesteps the matter, reasoning that the trial court’s frivolous finding stated a basis other than that suggested by the State’s motion. 174 Ill. 2d at 422. To say that the order had an indication of some independent basis, however, does not explain the similarity. I believe the State prematurely filed a somewhat generic motion to dismiss, which was likely designed to attack a post-conviction petition which had survived this first stage of post-conviction proceedings. The motion’s influence is shown by the trial court’s use of the same language, referring to a determination more properly made at a later stage in post-conviction proceedings; and of nearly verbatim language, referring to a statutory standard more properly applied at a later stage. The similar language, the similar untimely procedural references, and the similarly inappropriate reliance on waiver convince me that the trial judge was influenced by and relied on the State’s motion. Accordingly, dismissal of defendant’s pro se petition was improper.