Court Opinion

ID: 9394551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-15 19:03:39.41102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:00.853297
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 200481
                                          No. 1-20-0481
                                     Order filed May 15, 2023
                                                                                     First Division

                                               IN THE

                                APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                         FIRST DISTRICT

                                                        )
  THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                  )     Appeal from the Circuit Court
                                                        )     of Cook County.
          Plaintiff-Appellee,                           )
                                                        )
  v.                                                    )     No. 18 CR 10296
                                                        )
  ANTHONY GRAYER,                                       )
                                                        )     The Honorable
          Defendant-Appellant.                          )     Alfredo Maldonado,
                                                        )     Judge, presiding.

          JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court.
          Presiding Justice Lavin and Justice Coghlan concurred in the judgment.

                                             ORDER

¶1       Held: Further proceedings required where the defendant filed a notice of appeal from a
         nonfinal judgment. The postconviction court dismissed the original postconviction petition
         but did not rule on the “amended petition.”

¶2       Petitioner Anthony Grayer pled guilty to an amended charge of possession of a controlled

substance under a negotiated plea agreement. The court accepted his plea and sentenced him. Grayer

filed an initial postconviction petition asserting substantive claims, which the postconviction court

summarily dismissed within the 90-day time required under the Postconviction Hearing Act. 725

ILCS 5/122-2.1 (West 2018). Grayer also filed an “amended petition” the postconviction court

purportedly recharacterized as a motion for leave to file a successive petition and continued the
 No. 1-20-0481

matter until early March. On February 21, Grayer filed a notice of appeal from the summary

dismissal. That is, Grayer appealed from a nonfinal order.

¶3           Illinois Supreme Court Rule 606(b) (“Perfection of Appeal.”) provides “[a]ppeals shall

be perfected by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the trial court.” This is the only

jurisdictional step. IL S CT Rule 606 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023). The rule further provides that when a timely

posttrial or postsentencing motion directed against the judgment has been filed by counsel or by a

pro se defendant, a notice of appeal filed before the entry of the order disposing of all pending

postjudgment motions “shall have no effect, and shall be stricken by the trial court.”

¶4           Under Rule 606(b), the postconviction court erred by failing to strike Grayer’s notice

of appeal. Accordingly, we vacate the postconviction court’s January 30, 2020 order dismissing

Grayer’s original petition, strike the notice of appeal, and remand for second-stage postconviction

proceedings on the superseding petition because the 90-day limit has expired.

¶5                                           Background

¶6       In 2018, Anthony Grayer was indicted in three cases with the delivery of fentanyl. On

February 5, 2019, Grayer pled guilty to an amended charge of possession of a controlled substance

under a negotiated plea agreement. Grayer waived his right to a presentencing investigation. The

trial court sentenced him to an extended term of five years imprisonment. 730 ILCS 5/5-8-2 (West

2018). (Grayer was subject to an extended term due to felony convictions). The court admonished

Grayer that he had 30 days to file a written motion to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate the

judgment; Grayer stated he understood.

¶7       More than three months later, on May 28, Grayer filed a motion captioned “Petition to

Vacate Judgment (Plea) Under 2-1401.” Grayer averred he did not know about a potential defense

involving an investigative alert until March 10, 2019. On June 20, 2019, Grayer filed pro se an

                                                  -2-
 No. 1-20-0481

“amended” 2-1401 petition, reasserting an unlawful arrest because the investigative alert was based

on untrue accounts by police officers to establish probable cause. Grayer stated that he had proof

that he was not in Chicago on the 2018 dates specified in the investigative alert.

¶8       Grayer filed an amended section 2-1401 petition to vacate judgment on June 20, and the

State moved to dismiss the petition. On August 16, the postconviction court held a hearing on the

petition and a motion for discovery. The postconviction court explained to Grayer that he missed

the deadline to file a motion to withdraw his plea as he did not file a motion to withdraw his plea

within 30 days. The court granted the motion to dismiss because the section 2-1401 petition was

improper to assert claims about events that occurred outside of court.

¶9       On November 6, 2019, Grayer filed pro se a “post-conviction petition.” The petition mostly

repeated the claims asserted in the section 2-1401 petition. Two months later, Grayer filed an

“amended” pro se postconviction petition, claiming: (i) his arrest was unlawful because it was

effectuated under an investigative alert and not a warrant, and (ii) police had no probable cause to

arrest Grayer when the alert contained false information (incorrect dates). Also. Grayer argued his

counsel had been ineffective by failing to move to quash and suppress evidence and to investigate.

¶ 10     On January 30, 2020, the postconviction court summarily dismissed Grayer’s initial

postconviction petition, stating the rationale in open court and a written order.

¶ 11     Immediately after ruling, the court stated that it had received Grayer’s amended

postconviction petition. The court recharacterized it as a motion for leave to file a successive petition

and took the matter under advisement. The court set the amended petition for March 6, 2020. (“I’ve

just denied Mr. Grayer’s initial postconviction petition. The clerk is to notify him. It seems that Mr.

Grayer has filed what he styled as amended pro se conviction petition, which would really actually

be a leave to file subsequent or a successive postconviction petition.”).

                                                   -3-
 No. 1-20-0481

¶ 12     On February 21, Grayer filed a notice of appeal from the January 30 dismissal of his

postconviction petition.

¶ 13                                            Analysis

¶ 14     We review summary dismissal of a postconviction petition de novo. People v. Tate, 2012

IL 112214. And we review de novo the postconviction court’s compliance with applicable

procedures when dealing with a self-represented litigant’s pleadings. People v. Smith, 371 Ill. App.

3d 817, 819 (2007).

¶ 15     The procedural history is unusual. Grayer asserts the only issue involves the summary

dismissal of the original petition because the trial court never considered the amended petition.

Generally, the rules of criminal appeals control postconviction appeals. People v. Bounds, 182 Ill.

2d 1, 3 (1998); Ill. S. Ct. R. 651(d) (eff. July 1, 2017). Thus, Rule 606(b) controls the timing of

postconviction appeals. Ill. S. Ct R. 606(b) (eff. Jan. 1, 2023).

¶ 16     Under Rule 606(b), parties can only appeal from final judgments. A judgment may become

nonfinal when a party timely files a posttrial motion other than a notice of appeal. If a party also

files a notice of appeal, and if the trial court has not yet ruled on the posttrial motion, the trial court

must strike the notice of appeal. As Rule 606(b) states, “This rule applies whether the timely

postjudgment motion was filed before or after the date on which the notice of appeal was filed.” Id.

¶ 17     The appellate court has jurisdiction over final appealable orders, and summary dismissals

are final appealable orders. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 651(a) (eff. July 1, 2017). Thus, our jurisdiction turns

on what we make of the amended petition and how we characterize the trial court’s actions. For

example, had the court said nothing about the separate filing, we might fairly hold that the summary

dismissal of the original petition was an implicit summary dismissal of the amended petition. See

People v. Harris, 224 Ill. 2d 115, 139 (2007) (“By entering a final order summarily dismissing the

                                                    -4-
 No. 1-20-0481

petition as frivolous and patently without merit, the court impliedly denied the requests in

defendant’s prayer for relief.). But we cannot do so: the record demonstrates the court was aware of

the amended petition.

¶ 18     The postconviction court docketed the original petition on November 16, 2019. The court

summarily dismissed this petition on January 30, 2020, 86 days later and within the 90-day time

limit. On the same day, the court received a separate filing. Grayer styled that filing as an amended

petition. The court recharacterized it as a successive petition and continued the matter to March 6.

On appeal, the parties agree the court never ruled on this petition (“the amended petition”). Grayer

argues this violates the 90-day time period.

¶ 19     In Grayer’s view, the postconviction court failed to rule on the entire petition, including

the original and amended petition. Grayer asserts the appellate court should remand for second stage

proceedings because the court entered an improper order: a partial summary dismissal. The State

counters that the petition at issue is not properly before the appellate court because the

postconviction court has yet to rule on it. But the State’s proposed solution calls for the appellate

court to ignore the amended petition and affirm the summary dismissal of the original petition.

¶ 20     On January 30, 2020, the trial court briefly mentioned the amended petition in the written

order summarily dismissing the original petition. But the trial judge denied only the original

postconviction petition. Regarding the “Amended Petition,” the court stated, “It seems that

[defendant] has filed what he styled as amended pro se conviction petition, which would really

actually be a leave to file subsequent or a successive post-conviction petition. I’m going to take the

matter under advisement.” He continued the “successive post-conviction” to March 6th. But before

the March 6 hearing, Grayer filed an appeal from the order entered on January 30 order. The court

half sheet reflects the March 6th date “was stricken.”

                                                  -5-
 No. 1-20-0481

¶ 21     Section 122-2.1.(a) of the Act directs that within 90 days after the filing and docketing of

each petition, the circuit court shall examine the petition and enter a written order either dismissing

the petition as frivolous or patently without merit, “specifying the findings of fact and conclusions

of law it made in reaching its decision, and such an order is a final judgment. 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1

(West 2018). “The 90-day time period of section 122-2.1 is mandatory, not directory.” People v.

McCaskill, 2012 IL App (1st) 110174, ¶ 11.

¶ 22     The trial court should have ruled on the amended petition that Grayer had filed within 90

days. See People v. Watson, 187 Ill. 2d 448, 451-52 (1997) (“When a defendant who has filed an

original post-conviction petition subsequently files an amended petition, the 90-day period in which

the court must examine the defendant’s petition and enter an order thereon is to be calculated from

the filing of the amended petition.”) The parties on appeal agree that the court never ruled on it

despite docketing the amended petition for further consideration.

¶ 23     Under these circumstances and in obedience with Rule 606(b), the postconviction court

should have struck the notice of appeal and found the “Amended Petition” superseded the original

petition. We therefore vacate the January 30, 2020 order dismissing Grayer’s original petition.

Because the court did not rule on the petition within 90 days, we remand to the trial court with

directions to conduct a second stage review of the “Amended Petition.”

¶ 24     Vacated and remanded.

                                                  -6-