Court Opinion

ID: 9725136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:32:19.631667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:11.123174
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE REID, dissenting: In this matter, the trial judge dismissed Wilder’s petition as frivolous and patently without merit. Specifically, the trial judge determined that several of the defendant’s allegations were barred by waiver and res judicata. I do not agree with this ruling. Furthermore, I do not agree with the majority that a postconviction petition can or should be summarily dismissed at the first stage on the basis of waiver. The majority acknowledges that there is a split within our appellate district on this issue. The majority relies on and follows the decision that this court reached in People v. Jefferson, 345 Ill. App. 3d 60, 70 (2003), where the court determined that waiver and res judicata could serve as the basis for the summary dismissal of a postconviction petition at its first stage. Instead, I believe that People v. Etherly, 344 Ill. App. 3d 599 (2003), is the route that this district should follow. In Etherly this court determined that only res judicata, in certain instances, could serve as a basis for the summary dismissal of a postconviction petition at its first stage. A postconviction petition is meant to allow defendants who have suffered a constitutional deprivation to receive another bite at the apple. Here, the majority, because of procedural concerns, would allow a petitioner who has otherwise pled legitimate allegations concerning constitutional deprivations to not be given his day in court. I find this to be unjust and unfair. As such, I dissent.