Court Opinion

ID: 9720734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:40:16.272646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:20.890926
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, specially concurring: I agree that the circuit court’s judgment must be affirmed in this case. I write separately, however, to express my views on several aspects of today’s opinion. In addressing claims I and II, the court asserts that while it would normally examine whether the claims pass the cause and prejudice test, “these claims require a more nuanced analysis.” 206 Ill. 2d at 394. The court also states that it need not recognize the distinction, recognized in federal courts, between procedural and substantive due process competency claims because the common question to each is the bona fide doubt issue, which has previously been decided by both this court and the federal courts. 206 Ill. 2d at 395. The court concludes that collateral estoppel precludes defendant from reasserting the issue in this action. 206 Ill. 2d at 396. It appears to me that the court views the issue raised in this proceeding as the same issue defendant presented in his earlier state post-conviction proceeding. See 206 Ill. 2d at 396. If this is the case, I believe that the cause and prejudice test would be inapplicable since the test is couched in terms of “cause” for the failure to raise a claim in an earlier proceeding and prejudice resulting therefrom. People v. Orange, 195 Ill. 2d 437, 449 (2001). An issue that was previously litigated and is raised anew in a successive proceeding can never fall under the ambit of the cause and prejudice test because the issue had, indeed, been raised in the earlier proceeding. I believe it is this fact which makes the cause and prejudice test inapplicable in the present case and not the fact that defendant’s competency claims “require” a different analysis. To that end, I believe that it would behoove this court to distinguish between “same-claim” successive petitions and “new claim” successive petitions.1 New claims, i.e., those never before raised, are subject to waiver, or more appropriately procedural default, and would be excused only if the petitioner established both cause and prejudice for the failure to raise the issue sooner. On the other hand, same claims, i.e. those issues raised in a previous post-conviction action, fall prey to the procedural bar of res judicata. This leads me to comment on whether the issues raised in defendant’s first state post-conviction proceeding collaterally estop his pursuit of the competency issues in the proceeding at bar. Unlike my colleagues, I do not believe that the issue here is the same as the issue this court confronted in defendant’s first post-conviction action. There, defendant claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because his trial attorney failed to have defendant’s mental condition evaluated prior to trial for purposes of an insanity defense. According to defendant, such an evaluation would have revealed that defendant suffered from mental disorders which could have given rise to a potential insanity defense or potential mitigation evidence. The circuit court rejected this claim, dismissing it without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, we affirmed, holding that there was nothing in defendant’s background which would have or should have prompted a psychological evaluation to determine defendant’s sanity at the time of the offense. As a result, trial counsel was not deficient in failing to seek the evaluation. In so holding, we pointed out that the post-conviction judge, who had also presided over defendant’s trial, specifically stated that “ ‘[i]f there had been anything that would have suggested [a] psychiatric exam, I probably would have ordered it sua sponte. I’ve been known to do that to satisfy myself as to the mental competency of a defendant in front of the bench. There’s none of that in this record.’ ” Tenner, 175 Ill. 2d at 81. We further held that even if counsel had been deficient, defendant had not been prejudiced because he “failed to show that a mental evaluation would have revealed evidence that could have resulted in his acquittal on grounds on insanity.” Tenner, 175 Ill. 2d at 382. As the foregoing reveals, in the previous case, this court never considered the issue of defendant’s competence to stand trial. Incompetence at the time of trial is a different question from insanity at the time of the offense. The latter is concerned with whether a defendant appreciated the criminality of his or her conduct and whether the defendant could conform that conduct to the law at the time of the events in question. In contrast, questions as to fitness to stand trial address whether, at the time of trial, a defendant has the ability to understand the proceedings and to assist in his or her defense. Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 125 L. Ed. 2d 321, 113 S. Ct. 2680 (1993). In my view, our previous decision did not speak to the question of competency to stand trial. Instead our analysis was confined to the issue of whether counsel was ineffective for failing to have defendant undergo a psychiatric examination for a potential insanity defense. Although aspects of our discussion touched upon defendant’s demeanor during trial proceedings, we made these observations in the course of assessing whether trial counsel should have investigated the possibility of mounting an insanity defense. We did not speak specifically to the question of whether a bona fide doubt as to competency existed. I note that the court points to a supplemental petition, filed by defendant in his first state post-conviction petition, in which defendant alleged that a psychiatric evaluation would have enabled his trial attorneys to make “an informed decision” about his fitness to stand trial. 206 Ill. 2d at 386. My review of the record, however, reveals that neither the post-conviction judge nor this court addressed the matter of fitness in any depth. In fact, when defendant asserted his competency claims in federal court, the State raised the procedural bar of default, arguing that defendant had failed to raise the matter in state court. The federal district court, however, refused to enforce the bar, specifically noting that incompetency claims are never subject to procedural default. Tenner v. Gilmore, No. 97 — C—2305 (N.D. Ill. October 8, 1998). The fact that the State argued procedural default, coupled with the district court’s assertion of an exception to the procedural default bar, leads me to conclude that neither the State nor the district judge believed that the precise issue had ever been given a full hearing in the state courts. Under these circumstances, I am reluctant to hold that the issue decided in the first post-conviction is “identical” to the issue presented in the case at bar. Nevertheless, I believe that the federal courts have spoken definitively on the issues raised by defendant in the proceeding at bar and that the decisions of the federal courts collaterally estop defendant from litigating the matters anew in our state courts. Defendant argues that Dr. Rossiter’s 2000 report is new evidence that prevents collateral estoppel from applying. Dr. Rossiter’s report, however, does not constitute new evidence — it is not based on any recent evaluations of defendant nor does it present any new facts regarding defendant’s behavior at the time of trial. In fact, Dr. Rossiter does not even opine that defendant was unfit at the time of trial. Rather, he contends that defendant “was more likely than not unfit to stand trial in March 1990.” In my view, this conclusion, based on a current review of existing evidence, does not rise to the level necessary to preclude the application of collateral estoppel.  This distinction is recognized by the federal courts in habeas corpus proceedings. See J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice & Procedure § 28.2b (3d ed. 1998). Although the doctrine of res judicata does not bar successive petitions on habeas corpus, the United States Supreme Court has allowed the federal habeas courts to consider dismissing a petition when the same claims have been previously raised in an earlier federal habeas corpus proceedings and the ends of justice would not be served by relitigation. See Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U.S. 239, 68 L. Ed. 999, 44 S. Ct. 524 (1924); Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U.S. 224, 68 L. Ed. 989, 44 S. Ct. 519 (1924). Congress codified the Court’s holding in 1948, and iii 1963 the Supreme Court construed the provision. See Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 10 L. Ed. 2d 148, 83 S. Ct. 1068 (1963). Same-claim petitions are barred only if (i) the same ground presented in the subsequent case was determined adversely to the petitioner in the first proceedings, (ii) the previous determination was on the merits, and (iii) the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the merits of the subsequent petition. J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice & Procedure § 28.2b (3d ed. 1998).