Court Opinion

ID: 9520333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:36:33.769403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:01.090617
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING PER CURIAM:  The State has petitioned for rehearing, contending that neither of petitioner’s allegations raised a substantial constitutional issue sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing. First, concerning petitioner’s contention that the court failed to advise him concerning the possible sentences he might receive if his plea of guilty to aggravated battery were accepted, we now agree that this allegation did not raise a substantial constitutional issue. As in the recent case of People v. Krantz (1974), 58 Ill.2d 187, 194, 317 N.E.2d 559, the petitioner here has made no claim that he was unaware of the possible punishment to which his conduct had exposed him or that he was otherwise prejudiced; any error would therefore be harmless. The petition for rehearing also contends that the petitioner’s allegation that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to trial by jury likewise did not raise a substantial constitutional issue sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing. The State argues, citing People v. Arbuckle (1969), 42 Ill.2d 177, 246 N.E.2d 240, that the petitioner has not met his burden of providing or explaining the absence of supporting affidavits and, consequently, that the post-conviction petition was properly dismissed without an evidentiary hearing. Concerning the facts, the State contends that the appellate court opinion (82 Ill.App.2d 184, 189) indicates Ruiz was “quite able to take the stand in his own behalf at trial and present his side of the case,” and that the interpreter was a person brought to court by the defendant himself and “represented to be qualified by defendant and his counsel.” We disagree with the State’s reading of the original appellate court opinion, and we find that the record before us, which does not contain the original trial transcript, does not contain any support for these factual assertions. In People v. Arbuckle, supra, the petition not only lacked supporting affidavits, but the record itself contradicted the allegations of the petition. Such is not the case here. These factual questions are best resolved at an evidentiary hearing. In light of the serious constitutional question raised by petitioner’s allegations, we adhere to our original opinion that fundamental fairness requires remandment of this cause for an evidentiary hearing. We do this even though petitioner’s appellate counsel, who was also counsel at the trial, failed to raise the issue on the direct appeal. The requested rehearing is denied. Denied.