Court Opinion

ID: 9863357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 03:55:44.662069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:41:50.265738
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WRIGHT, specially concurring: After taking the matter under advisement following the second-stage hearing, the order signed by the judge on September 23, 2008, merely states the court “finds that, after reviewing the pleadings and case law and arguments made by the parties, that the State’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.” (Emphasis in original.) On appeal, the parties deal with the absence of judicial findings by assuming the court meant to allow the motion to dismiss based on all grounds set forth by the State. I respectfully suggest that the trial court’s order could be reversed based on the absence of findings alone. However, I join the majority by agreeing that, if the court intended to find in favor of the State on every issue, this order should nonetheless be set aside on the merits. In support of my view that the order could be reversed based on the absence of findings, I point out the procedural circumstances contained in this record. Following the first appeal from the summary denial of defendant’s postconviction petition, this court remanded the matter to the trial court for a second-stage hearing. The record shows, following the issuance of this court’s mandate, counsel for defendant diligently prepared for the second-stage hearing by filing an amended postconviction petition complete with multiple affidavits. Similarly, the State responded to the amended postconviction petition with a detailed motion to dismiss and provided copies of supporting case law to the court for the trial judge’s convenience. Further, the record shows both attorneys zealously presented their arguments to the court during the second-stage hearing, which occurred September 12, 2008. After the hearing, the court noted it had received “extensive material to deal with here” and informed the parties that it would postpone announcing the outcome of the motion to dismiss by taking the matter under advisement. The judge promised to “render a decision in a written order.” Since the court indicated the ruling would be issued by written order, the public defender agreed to discharge defendant’s writ and waive defendant’s appearance before the court at the time the court issued the written order. Yet, before issuing the written order on September 23, 2008, the judge initiated an unexpected ex parte conversation with the prosecutor, in open court, regarding the matter under advisement. This communication unfolded without notice to either party and appears to have been precipitated by the prosecutor’s appearance before the judge on other, unrelated matters. During oral arguments counsel for the State indicated that announcing rulings from the bench without previous notice to both parties is not an unusual practice. In this case, neither this defendant nor defendant’s public defender received notice of the court’s intention to issue a verbal ruling or appeared before the judge on that date. In the absence of defense counsel, the judge verbally instructed the prosecutor to prepare “an order reflecting the findings of the Court in support of your side of the arguments.” Then, after the prosecutor agreed to do so, the court announced the “State’s motion to dismiss is allowed.” The transcript of this exchange between the court and the prosecutor is contained in the record on appeal together with the transcript of the hearing on September 12, 2008. Neither transcript contains any articulated legal analysis or findings rendered by the judge. To the prosecutor’s credit, she neither invented nor created judicial findings. I emphasize that judicially rendered findings serve several purposes. Judicial findings are the only means by which a party, the interested public, and to some degree a court of review can measure whether the circuit judge properly considered the issues contained in the postconviction petition according to the mandates of the applicable law. In this case, the court approved the order prepared without findings. It is this order which the defendant has asked this court to review. In this concurrence, I do not intend to suggest that a trial judge cannot verbally announce a ruling on the record, with both parties present, after taking a matter under advisement or should not request the prevailing party to prepare an order consistent with the court’s analysis as announced in open court. This is a well-accepted practice in many circuits. In those situations, the court’s announced findings actually dictate the result in the postconviction proceeding. Since our review is de nova, our supreme court has indicated that there is little reason to give deference to the trial court’s findings concerning a second-stage hearing. People v. Childress, 191 Ill. 2d 168, 174 (2000). Yet, I respectfully suggest our supreme court has not provided a green light for trial judges to make no judicial findings following a second-stage hearing or to delegate the task of rendering findings to the prevailing party in the absence of opposing counsel. The court’s directive to the prevailing party to prepare the findings is what I find troubling in this case. Hopefully, the concerns expressed in this separate concurrence will encourage a different process in future postconviction proceedings. My respected colleagues have carefully considered the issues, as formulated and requested by the defense, based on an assumption that the judge intended to allow the motion to dismiss on all grounds. I find their thoughtful analysis to be both thorough and persuasive. Therefore, after considering the merits of each issue raised in the motion to dismiss, I am in agreement that, based on the presumption that the trial court intended to allow the motion to dismiss on all grounds asserted by the State, the trial court’s order must be set aside and the matter should be remanded for a third-stage evidentiary hearing.