Court Opinion

ID: 9724298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:52:19.703065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:59.074877
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE STEIGMANN, specially concurring: Although I agree with the majority, I write specially to point out that this case constitutes yet another instance of “no good deed going unpunished.” The trial court no doubt thought it was accommodating defendant’s real intent, which was to challenge the legitimacy of his guilty plea, by turning his habeas corpus petition into a postconviction petition. The court took this action because it was aware that defendant’s claims about the legitimacy of his guilty plea were not cognizable in a habeas corpus petition. Nonetheless, as this court’s opinion shows, the trial court’s recharacterization of defendant’s habeas corpus petition was unwise, although well-intentioned. Since the enactment of section 122 — 1(d) of the Act, which became effective January 1, 1997, “no case has held that a trial court erred by failing to recharacterize a defendant’s petition as a postconviction petition.” Holliday, 369 Ill. App. 3d at 681, 867 N.E.2d at 1019. Yet, in this case and several others, including Shellstrom, reversals have occurred because trial courts recharacterized defendants’ pleadings into postconviction petitions but did so inappropriately. Trial courts would be well advised to rethink the wisdom of ever recharacterizing a pleading into a postconviction petition under the Act and, as this court emphasizes yet again, should “ ‘do so only in “unusual and compelling circumstances.” ’ [Citation.]” 395 Ill. App. 3d at 588.