Court Opinion

ID: 9725493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:50:09.421201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:15.899934
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE ZWICK, dissenting: I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court considered defendant’s petition and dismissed it independent of any input by the State. The decision People v. Gaultney, 174 Ill. 2d 410, 418 (1996), unequivocally mandates that, prior to summarily dismissing a pro se postconviction petition, the trial court is obligated to consider "the petition independently, without any input from either side.” (Emphasis added.) Reversible error is established if the circuit court sought or relied upon input from the prosecution in determining whether the petition was frivolous. See People v. Gaultney, 174 Ill. 2d 410, 418 (1996). In the case sub judice, the thrust of the defendant’s petition was the allegation that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. The prosecutor stated to the court in opposition to the petition that defendant was represented at trial by "very able, competent counsel.” This statement directly contradicted defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The majority holds that because this comment was "uninvited” and "incidental,” it did not contaminate the proceedings. I cannot agree. Whether uninvited and incidental or deliberate and calculated, the effect of the prosecutor’s statement is the same. It serves to destroy the independence of the judicial evaluation. The court was duty bound to examine the petition free from any input by either side. The prosecution is expressly precluded from any participation at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, a comment by the prosecutor that challenges the very core of defendant’s argument is patently improper and cannot be excused merely by characterizing it as inadvertent or incidental. Whether deliberate or unintended, the prosecutor’s comment was a dagger thrust to the heart of defendant’s claim. The fact that the court did not solicit the comment or expressly indicate its reliance thereon does not justify the inappropriate conduct. In my view, this comment was not an incremental intrusion of little significance, but a strategic attack by the prosecution. The trial court, upon hearing the gratuitous comments by the prosecutor, should have declared the postconviction equivalent of a mistrial and transferred the cause to a different judge. At the very most, this result would necessitate the expenditure of a few additional hours of judicial resources. To me, it is a small price to pay to protect the defendant’s constitutional rights and the integrity of the process. For the above reasons, I would reverse and remand with directions that the pro se petition be examined by a different judge.