People v. Alcozer

• Citation: 241 Ill.2d 248,350 Ill.Dec. 1,948 N.E.2d 70
• Decision Date: 24 March 2011
• Docket Number: No. 108109.,108109.
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,v.Isaac ALCOZER, Appellant.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

241 Ill.2d 248

948 N.E.2d 70

350 Ill.Dec. 1

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,

v.Isaac ALCOZER, Appellant.

No. 108109.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 24, 2011.

Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Patricia Unsinn and Alan D. Goldberg, Deputy Defenders, and Kerry D. Goettsch, Assistant Appellate Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Chicago, for appellant.Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Anita Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Annette Collins and Brian K. Hodes, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

[350 Ill.Dec. 3 , 241 Ill.2d 250] OPINION

Chief Justice KILBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

At issue in this appeal is the constitutionality of section 22–105 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/22–105 (West 2006)), providing for imposition of fees and costs upon summary dismissal of a postconviction petition summarily dismissed as frivolous or patently without merit pursuant to section 122–2.1 of the Post–Conviction Hearing Act (Act) ( 725 ILCS 5/122–2.1 (West 2006)). Petitioner,

[350 Ill.Dec. 4 , 948 N.E.2d 73]

Isaac Alcozer, contends that section 22–105 violates his rights to due process and equal protection.

Upon summarily dismissing Alcozer's pro se petition for postconviction relief, the circuit court of Cook County imposed fees and costs. Alcozer appealed only the order imposing fees and costs. The appellate court affirmed, but modified the costs and fees. No. 1–07–2092 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). We allowed Alcozer's petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S.Ct. R. 315 (eff.Feb.26, 2010). We affirm the judgment of the appellate court.

I. BACKGROUND

Alcozer was convicted of first degree murder following a bench trial and sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment on the murder charge, with an additional 25 years for personally discharging the firearm that caused the victim's death. The appellate court affirmed Alcozer's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. People v. Alcozer, 361 Ill.App.3d 1084, 331 Ill.Dec. 534, 911 N.E.2d 4 (2005) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).

On April 19, 2007, Alcozer filed a pro se postconviction petition. In his pro se postconviction petition, Alcozer presented two arguments: (1) that he was illegally arrested and his pretrial motion to quash arrest should have been granted; and (2) that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to continue challenging the legality of his arrest.

On June 21, 2007, the trial court summarily dismissed Alcozer's pro se postconviction petition, finding that Alcozer failed to raise the claims on direct appeal and that res judicata prevented consideration of Alcozer's postconviction claims. The trial court's order concluded that “the issues raised and presented by [Alcozer] are frivolous and patently without merit.” In addition to dismissing Alcozer's petition, the trial court ordered that Alcozer pay a total of $359 in costs and fees, pursuant to section 22–105 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/22–105 (West 2006)). The order imposing fees and costs found:

“[Alcozer's petition for postconviction relief] was entirely frivolous in that: 1. it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact; and 2. the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are not warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.”

On appeal, Alcozer challenged the assessment of costs and fees, as well as their constitutionality. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's imposition of costs and fees, but adjusted the total due to $105. No. 1–07–2092 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23.)

II. ANALYSIS

In this appeal, Alcozer argues that section 22–105 of the Code violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States and Illinois constitutions. He contends that section 22–105 is unconstitutional as applied to him and other prisoners who file initial petitions for postconviction relief because it is a pecuniary punishment that “acts as a financial interposition between an indigent petitioner and his right to the courts.” In the alternative, Alcozer submits that this court need not consider his constitutional argument if section 22–105 is construed as not requiring the imposition of a monetary penalty every time an indigent prisoner's pro se postconviction petition is summarily dismissed.

The State argues that section 22–105 is constitutional because it is rationally designed to serve a legitimate government

[350 Ill.Dec. 5 , 948 N.E.2d 74]

purpose, “ to discourage prisoners from filing frivolous pleadings and recoup some of the systemic costs generated by the filing of such pleadings.” The State contends that Alcozer forfeited his alternative argument by not specifically raising the issue in his petition for leave to appeal or before the appellate court. See People v. McCarty, 223 Ill.2d 109, 122, 306 Ill.Dec. 570, 858 N.E.2d 15 (2006) (the failure to raise an issue in a petition for leave to appeal results in the forfeiture of that issue); People v. Robinson, 223 Ill.2d 165, 174–75, 308 Ill.Dec. 19, 860 N.E.2d 1101 (2006) (dismissing appeal where the only claim the defendant argued in his brief was not raised in his petition for leave to appeal or before the appellate court).

Alcozer responds to the State's forfeiture argument that his petition for leave to appeal properly raised the issue by arguing that:

“[I]n People v. Brown,

[228 Ill.2d 538, 321 Ill.Dec. 557, 889 N.E.2d 1117 (2008) ]

(petition for leave to appeal allowed, March 29, 2008), this Court will decide whether ‘frivolous' means the same in section 22–105(b)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 122–2.1 of the Post–Conviction Hearing Act.”

Alcozer states that his petition for leave to appeal asked this court to hold his case in abeyance for resolution of Brown, as it may be dispositive of the issues raised in Alcozer's case. Ultimately, this court declined to consider the construction of section 22–105 in Brown because the fees and costs were vacated and, thus, construction of section 22–105 was no longer an issue. See People v. Brown, 236 Ill.2d 175, 182, 337 Ill.Dec. 897, 923 N.E.2d 748 (2010).

We reject the State's argument that Alcozer has forfeited this argument by failing to raise it in his petition for leave to appeal. There is no question that a determination of whether “frivolous” means the same in section 22–105(b)(1) of the Code and section 122–2.1 of the Post–Conviction Hearing Act was raised in Alcozer's petition for leave to appeal. Additionally, even “[w]hen an issue is not specifically mentioned in a party's petition for leave to appeal, but it is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with other matters properly before the court, review is appropriate.” People v. Becker, 239 Ill.2d 215, 239, 346 Ill.Dec. 527, 940 N.E.2d 1131 (2010) (quoting People v. McKown, 236 Ill.2d 278, 310, 338 Ill.Dec. 415, 924 N.E.2d 941 (2010)). Further, it is clear that the constitutional issues raised by Alcozer depend upon construction of section 22–105. It is well settled that courts should avoid constitutional questions when a case may be decided on other grounds. Beahringer v. Page, 204 Ill.2d 363, 370, 273 Ill.Dec. 784, 789 N.E.2d 1216 (2003).

Interpretation of section 22–105 is inextricably intertwined with the constitutional issues presented in this appeal and, accordingly, review is appropriate. People v. McKown, 236 Ill.2d 278, 310, 338 Ill.Dec. 415, 924 N.E.2d 941 (2010). Moreover, Alcozer's argument requires interpretation of the statute directly related to his constitutional challenge, and we find that this issue has not been forfeited. See McCarty, 223 Ill.2d at 123, 306 Ill.Dec. 570, 858 N.E.2d 15 (an argument on the interpretation of a statute directly related to a constitutional challenge is not forfeited).

A. Statutory Interpretation

We now consider Alcozer's argument that section 22–105 does not require a monetary penalty be imposed every time an indigent prisoner's postconviction petition is summarily dismissed. This issue requires us to construe section 22–105 to ascertain the meaning of “frivolous.” Issues of statutory construction involve questions of law and are subject to de novo review.

[350 Ill.Dec. 6 , 948 N.E.2d 75]

People v. Howard, 228 Ill.2d 428, 432, 320 Ill.Dec. 868, 888 N.E.2d 85 (2008). The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intent. People v. Blair, 215 Ill.2d 427, 442, 294 Ill.Dec. 654, 831 N.E.2d 604 (2005). The best indication of the legislature's intent is the language of the statute, given its plain and ordinary meaning. Blair, 215 Ill.2d at 442–43, 294 Ill.Dec. 654, 831 N.E.2d 604.

Alcozer argues that section 22–105 uses a different standard for determining whether a petition is “frivolous” than the standard for summary dismissal as “frivolous or * * * patently without merit” under section 122–2.1 of the Post–Conviction Hearing Act. According to Alcozer, section 22–105 specifically omits any mention of the “patently without merit” standard of section 122–2.1, and that section 22–105 is only applicable when a prisoner files a “frivolous” pleading. The State counters that a petition for postconviction relief summarily dismissed as “frivolous or * * * patently without merit” under the Post–Conviction Hearing Act is also “frivolous” as defined by section 22–105(b) of the Code.

Section 122–2.1 of the Post–Conviction Hearing Act provides for the summary dismissal of postconviction petitions “[i]f the court determines the petition is frivolous or is patently without merit.” 725 ILCS 5/122–2.1 (West 2006). In 1997, the legislature passed Public Act 90–505 (Pub. Act 90–505 (eff. Aug. 19, 1997)). Included in this legislation were provisions on the filing of frivolous lawsuits by...