People v. Allen

• Decision Date: 25 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 1–14–2125.,1–14–2125.
• Citation: 51 N.E.3d 1047,402 Ill.Dec. 295
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Respondent–Appellee, v. Harvey ALLEN, Jr., Petitioner–Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

51 N.E.3d 1047

402 Ill.Dec. 295

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Respondent–Appellee

v.Harvey ALLEN, Jr., Petitioner–Appellant.

No. 1–14–2125.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division.

March 25, 2016.

Amy P. Campanelli, Public Defender, Chicago (Lindsay Hugé, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Assistant State's Attorney, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Justice DELORT

delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 This case presents an issue of first impression: whether the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission Act (Act) (775 ILCS 40/1 et seq.

(West 2012)) provides relief to a petitioner who alleges that his conviction resulted from evidence which was physically coerced at the hands of police officers other than former Chicago police commander Jon Burge or his subordinates. We find that the explicit language of the Act limits its application only to petitioners who were victims of Burge or officers under his supervision, and we therefore affirm the trial court's dismissal of the Commission's referral of petitioner's case.

¶ 2 Petitioner Harvey Allen, Jr. was convicted of four counts of murder and one count of arson stemming from an incident which occurred on December 7, 1985. He was sentenced to natural life imprisonment. In 1993, this court affirmed his conviction and sentence. People v. Allen, 249 Ill.App.3d 1001, 1020, 189 Ill.Dec. 788, 620 N.E.2d 1105 (1993)

, appeal denied, 152 Ill.2d 563, 190 Ill.Dec. 895, 622 N.E.2d 1212 (1993), cert. denied sub nom.

Allen v. Illinois, 511 U.S. 1075, 114 S.Ct. 1657, 128 L.Ed.2d 374 (1994) (Allen I ). In Allen I, we specifically rejected Allen's contentions that his confession was involuntary because it was coerced through the improper tactics of his interrogating police officers. Id. at 1016–1017, 114 S.Ct. 1657. Later, we affirmed the dismissal of Allen's first petition for postconviction relief. People v. Allen, 322 Ill.App.3d 724, 255 Ill.Dec. 676, 750 N.E.2d 257 (2001)

, appeal denied, 198 Ill.2d 618, 264 Ill.Dec. 326, 770 N.E.2d 220 (2002) (Allen II ). In People v. Allen, 367 Ill.App.3d 1087, 340 Ill.Dec. 862, 929 N.E.2d 166 (2006) (table) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23 ), appeal denied, 222 Ill.2d 610, 308 Ill.Dec. 637, 862 N.E.2d 235 (2007) (table) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23 ) (Allen III ), we affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Allen's successive and supplemental postconviction petitions.

¶ 3 Allen then filed a second successive postconviction petition, in which he contended that police officers physically coerced his confession. In particular, this petition relied heavily on a report of the Special State's Attorney, Edward J. Egan, which detailed a pattern of police coercion of confessions in Chicago's Areas 2 and 3 under the leadership of Commander Burge. People v. Allen, 2014 IL App (1st) 120209–U, ¶ 18, 2014 WL 4072056

(Allen IV ). We determined that the Burge allegations were irrelevant to Allen's case, stating:

“Instead, petitioner was initially brought to District 3, which is within Area 1, where Burge was never the supervising detective and which was never mentioned in the Egan report. In addition, none of the detectives or police officers involved in petitioner's arrest and questioning were named in the Egan report, nor are petitioner's claims of physical abuse similar to the conduct revealed in the Egan report. Finally, there was no medical evidence or testimony supporting petitioner's claim.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. ¶ 25.

Accordingly, we found that Allen could not meet the cause-and-prejudice test to allow him to file a successive postconviction petition. Id. ¶ 34.

¶ 4 While the postconviction petition at issue in Allen IV was pending, Allen also applied for relief under the Act (775 ILCS 40/1 et seq.

(West 2012)). Section 15 of the Act established the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission (Commission). 775 ILCS 40/15 (West 2012). The Commission acts to investigate and determine factual claims of torture. 775 ILCS 40/10 (West 2012) ; see also generally People v. Christian, 2016 IL App (1st) 140030, ¶¶ 65–74, 401 Ill.Dec. 675, 50 N.E.3d 1157 (setting forth an exhaustive description of the Commission's function and procedures).

¶ 5 Pursuant to the Act, the Commission entered a “case disposition” dated May 20, 2013¹ , in which the Commission determined, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was “sufficient evidence of torture” in Allen's case to “conclude the Claim is credible and merits judicial review for appropriate relief.” We concluded in Allen IV that since Allen was processed in Area 1, the Egan Report was not relevant to his case. The Commission noted that, since Allen's trial, certain evidence of Burge's activities had “emerged,” but it stated that Burge's activities occurred in Areas 2 and 3. The case disposition contains no mention whatsoever of Area 1 where Allen was actually processed. Nothing in the Commission's case disposition or its findings actually links Burge or any of his subordinates to Allen's confession or conviction.

¶ 6 The Commission transmitted its conclusion to the chief judge of the circuit court of Cook County “for assignment to a trial judge for consideration” as required by the Act. 775 ILCS 40/50 (West 2012)

. Upon such a referral, the trial court normally conducts a hearing which is similar to a third-stage evidentiary hearing under the Illinois Post–Conviction Hearing Act. Christian, 2016 IL App (1st) 140030, ¶ 78, 401 Ill.Dec. 675, 50 N.E.3d 1157 ; see also 725 ILCS 5/122–1 et seq. (West 2012). Even if the Commission conducted an evidentiary hearing of its own, the Commission's factual findings from that hearing do not collaterally estop the trial court from making contrary findings. Christian, 2016 IL App (1st) 140030, ¶ 92, 401 Ill.Dec. 675, 50 N.E.3d 1157.

¶ 7 After the chief judge of the circuit court of Cook County received this referral, he transmitted it to a judge for consideration. The State then filed a motion to dismiss it under section 2–615 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure

(Code) (735 ILCS 5/2–615 (West 2012) ), arguing that because the referral did not link any conduct of Burge or his subordinates to Allen's confession and conviction, the Act did not apply. The trial court agreed and dismissed it, stating that the Commission's findings failed to indicate any nexus between its recitation of Burge's history and Allen's processing, resulting in “a kind of disconnect.” The court recognized that Allen had the right to “file a postconviction petition or successive postconviction petitions,” but that the referral was not “in compliance with the [Act]” or its stated purposes. This appeal followed.

¶ 8 We first note that Allen's brief fails to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rules in numerous respects. The appendix to the brief, which is not labeled as such, is only one page long and consists of merely an index to the record on appeal. The brief does not contain the verbatim text of the relevant statutes involved in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(5)

(eff. Feb. 6, 2013). In addition, Allen's brief fails to comply with Supreme Court Rule 342(a) because the brief does not contain: (1) a copy of the notice of appeal; (2) a copy of the judgment appealed from; (3) a copy of the Commission's order; nor (4) the dates corresponding to the filing or entry of the various items listed in the index to the record. Ill. S.Ct. R. 342(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2005). Nonetheless, we will consider the merits of this appeal, finding that the brief's lack of compliance with Supreme Court Rule 341(h) does not preclude our review. See In re Estate of Jackson, 354 Ill.App.3d 616, 620, 290 Ill.Dec. 625, 821 N.E.2d 1199 (2004) (reviewing court has choice to review merits, even in light of multiple Rule 341 omissions); Budzileni v. Department of Human Rights, 392 Ill.App.3d 422, 440–41, 331 Ill.Dec. 434, 910 N.E.2d 1190 (2009) (same as to Rule 342(a) ).

¶ 9 We also note that the record contains no materials from the Commission's proceedings whatsoever except a single document: a recommendation to the Commission from its own staff. The Act requires that “[a]ll proceedings of the Commission shall be recorded and transcribed as part of the record.” 775 ILCS 40/45(e)

(West 2012). It also requires that the Commission's referral to the chief judge include the “opinion of the Commission with supporting findings of fact, as well as the record in support of such opinion.” 775 ILCS 40/45(c) (West 2012). It is well established that any doubts arising from an incomplete record are resolved against an appellant. Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill.2d 389, 391–92, 76 Ill.Dec. 823, 459 N.E.2d 958 (1984). Since this case hinges on an issue of statutory interpretation, the omission of these materials from the record again does not prevent our review, but we admonish parties that filing the Commission's record when appealing orders disposing of such a referral will greatly aid meaningful judicial review in the future.

¶ 10 On appeal, Allen argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the Commission's referral pursuant to section 2–615

of the Code. Section 2–615 motions are established by the Code and therefore apply, in the main, to civil rather than criminal, cases. However, we may affirm on any basis in the record, whether or not the trial court relied on that basis or its reasoning was correct. Leonardi v. Loyola University of Chicago, 168 Ill.2d 83, 97, 212 Ill.Dec. 968, 658 N.E.2d 450 (1995). Regardless of whether a section 2–615 motion was the appropriate approach here, we find that the trial court correctly dismissed the referral.

¶ 11 A Commission referral normally triggers a trial court proceeding akin to a third-stage evidentiary hearing under the Post–Conviction Hearing Act. 725 ILCS 5/122–1 et seq.

(West 2012); Christian, 2016 IL App (1st) 140030, ¶ 78, 401...