People v. Boclair

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Citation202 Ill.2d 89,789 N.E.2d 734,273 Ill.Dec. 560
Docket Number No. 89388, No. 89471, No. 89534.
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Stanley BOCLAIR, Appellant. The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Joe McCain, Appellee. The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Earnest Johnson, Appellee.
Decision Date29 August 2002

789 N.E.2d 734
202 Ill.2d 89
273 Ill.Dec. 560

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,
v.
Stanley BOCLAIR, Appellant.
The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant,
v.
Joe McCain, Appellee.
The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant,
v.
Earnest Johnson, Appellee

Nos. 89388, 89471, 89534.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

August 29, 2002.

Rehearing Denied December 2, 2002.


789 N.E.2d 737
Joel T. Pelz, Jeffrey T. Shaw, Clark C. Johnson, of Jenner & Block, L.L.C. Chicago, for appellant in No. 89388

James E. Ryan, Attorney General, Springfield, Donald Bernardi, State's Attorney, Pontiac (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, William L. Browers, Anne S. Bagby, Assistant Attorneys General, Chicago, of counsel), for the People in No. 89388.

James E. Ryan, Attorney General, Springfield, Robert Haida, State's Attorney, Belleville (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, William L. Browers, Anne S. Bagby, Assistant Attorneys General, Chicago, Norbert J. Goetten, Stephen E. Norris, Gerry R. Arnold, Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Mt. Vernon, of counsel), for the People in No. 89471.

Robert Agostinelli, Deputy Defender, Donna K. Kelly, Thomas A. Karalis, Assistant Defenders, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Ottawa, for appellee in No. 89471.

James E. Ryan, Attorney General, Springfield, Jeffrey Farris, State's Attorney, Cairo (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, William L. Browers, Anne S. Bagby, Assistant Attorneys General, Chicago, Norbert J. Goetten, Stephen E. Norris, Gerry R. Arnold, Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Mt. Vernon, of counsel), for the People in No. 89534.

Robert Agostinelli, Deputy Defender, Thomas A. Karalis, Assistant Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Ottawa, for appellee in No. 89534.

Justice KILBRIDE delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendants in these three consolidated cases, Stanley Boclair, Joe McCain, and Earnest Johnson, were separately convicted of various unrelated crimes and are currently incarcerated. Their convictions were affirmed on direct review. Subsequently, each defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The circuit court summarily dismissed each post-conviction petition. All three defendants appealed.

In Boclair, 312 Ill.App.3d 346, 244 Ill. Dec. 855, 726 N.E.2d 1166, the Fourth District affirmed the dismissal. In McCain, 312 Ill.App.3d 529, 245 Ill.Dec. 130, 727 N.E.2d 383, the Fifth District reversed and held that the circuit court should not dismiss a petition as untimely or on waiver or res judicata grounds at the first stage of a post-conviction proceeding. Similarly, in Johnson, 312 Ill.App.3d 532, 245 Ill.Dec. 324, 727 N.E.2d 1058, the Fifth District reversed and held that the circuit court should not dismiss a petition as untimely without first providing the State with an opportunity to waive the procedural defect.

We granted leave to appeal primarily to determine whether the circuit court can summarily dismiss a defendant's post-conviction

789 N.E.2d 738
petition at the first stage of post-conviction proceedings as untimely. Additionally, we consider whether section 122-1(c) of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1(c) (West 1998)) is unconstitutionally vague and whether Public Act 83-942, eff. November 23, 1983, violates the single subject clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const.1970, art. IV, § 8(d)). We answer all three questions in the negative. We reverse the appellate court's judgment in Boclair and affirm the appellate court's judgment in McCain and Johnson.

I. BACKGROUND

Boclair was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder and was sentenced to death. On direct appeal, we vacated Boclair's death sentence but affirmed his convictions. People v. Boclair, 129 Ill.2d 458, 136 Ill.Dec. 29, 544 N.E.2d 715 (1989). In November 1991, defendant was resentenced to natural life in prison. In October 1992, the circuit court summarily dismissed defendant's pro se post-conviction petition and the appellate court affirmed. People v. Boclair, 246 Ill.App.3d 1119, 213 Ill.Dec. 86, 658 N.E.2d 556 (1993) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). We subsequently denied Boclair's petition for leave to appeal. People v. Boclair, 153 Ill.2d 562, 191 Ill.Dec. 622, 624 N.E.2d 810 (1993). In August 1998, defendant submitted a supplemental petition for post-conviction and post-judgment relief alleging that investigators obtained "newly discovered evidence" while pursuing a federal habeas corpus challenge. In November 1998, the circuit court summarily dismissed defendant's supplemental petition as "patently without merit." The circuit court did not address the timeliness requirement. The appellate court affirmed, finding that Boclair's petition was untimely and that Boclair failed even to purport that he was not culpably negligent. Boclair, 312 Ill.App.3d 346, 244 Ill.Dec. 855, 726 N.E.2d 1166.

McCain was convicted of two counts of attempted murder and three counts of aggravated assault in February 1989. After sentencing, McCain appealed and the appellate court affirmed. People v. McCain, 207 Ill.App.3d 1123, 178 Ill.Dec. 332, 604 N.E.2d 588 (1991) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). We denied defendant's petition for leave to appeal. People v. McCain, 139 Ill.2d 601, 159 Ill. Dec. 113, 575 N.E.2d 920 (1991). In August 1997, defendant filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief under the Act. The circuit court dismissed defendant's petition in October 1997, finding that defendant's petition was not timely filed, that the defendant was culpably negligent in not filing it on time, and that defendant failed to allege a constitutional violation that was not addressed on direct appeal or otherwise waived. The appellate court reversed and held that the circuit court should not dismiss a petition as untimely or on waiver or res judicata grounds at the first stage of a post-conviction proceeding. McCain, 312 Ill.App.3d 529, 245 Ill. Dec. 130, 727 N.E.2d 383.

Johnson was convicted of murder and robbery. He appealed and the appellate court reversed. People v. Johnson, 138 Ill.App.3d 980, 93 Ill.Dec. 332, 486 N.E.2d 433 (1985). On remand, defendant was again convicted. He appealed and the appellate court affirmed his conviction but remanded for resentencing. People v. Johnson, 173 Ill.App.3d 998, 123 Ill.Dec. 542, 527 N.E.2d 1317 (1988). In March 1998, Johnson filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Johnson contended that his failure to seek timely post-conviction relief was not due to his own culpable negligence. Johnson based his petition in large part on the recent discovery of new evidence negating his conviction. The circuit

789 N.E.2d 739
court summarily dismissed the petition, finding that it was clearly filed beyond the statutory time limitation and was therefore meritless. The circuit court further found that Johnson failed to show that his delay in filing was not due to his own culpable negligence. The appellate court reversed and held that the circuit court may not dismiss a petition as untimely without first providing the State with an opportunity to waive the procedural defect. Johnson, 312 Ill.App.3d 532, 245 Ill.Dec. 324, 727 N.E.2d 1058

Boclair filed a petition for leave to appeal the Fourth District's decision. Similarly, the State sought leave to appeal from the Fifth District's decisions. We granted the parties' respective petitions for leave to appeal and consolidated their cases.

II. ANALYSIS

On appeal to this court, defendants collectively argue that (1) the circuit courts erred in summarily dismissing their post-conviction petitions as untimely; (2) section 122-1(c) of the Act is unconstitutionally vague; and (3) Public Act 83-942, eff. November 23, 1983, amending the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, violates the single subject clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const.1970, art. IV, § 8(d)). We address each issue in turn.

A. Timeliness of Defendants' Petitions

McCain and Johnson first contend that the circuit courts erred by summarily denying their post-conviction petitions as untimely during stage one of the post-conviction proceeding process. Boclair similarly argues that the appellate court, in affirming summary dismissal, improperly deemed his petition untimely. We consider this issue de novo. People v. Coleman, 183 Ill.2d 366, 388-89, 233 Ill.Dec. 789, 701 N.E.2d 1063 (1998). For the reasons that follow, we agree with defendants.

Our decision in People v. Wright, 189 Ill.2d 1, 243 Ill.Dec. 198, 723 N.E.2d 230 (1999), is generally instructive on this issue. There, we considered whether, in an appeal from the dismissal of a post-conviction petition, the State may challenge the petition as untimely. Wright, 189 Ill.2d at 10-11, 243 Ill.Dec. 198, 723 N.E.2d 230. We held that the time requirement in section 122-1 is a statute of limitation and not a jurisdictional prerequisite to a post-conviction proceeding. Section 122-1(c) states, in relevant part,

"(c) No proceedings under this Article shall be commenced more than 6 months after the denial of a petition for leave to appeal or the date for filing such a petition if none is filed or more than 45 days after the defendant files his or her brief in the appeal of the sentence before the Illinois Supreme Court * * * or 3 years from the date of conviction, whichever is sooner, unless the petitioner alleges facts showing that the delay was not due to his or her culpable negligence." 725 ILCS 5/122-1(c) (West 1998).

In Wright, defendant's petition survived the first stage of the post-conviction proceedings. At the second stage, the circuit court granted the State's motion to dismiss. On appeal, the defendant contended that the circuit court erred in granting the State's motion. The State responded, in part, by claiming, for the first time, that defendant's petition was untimely and that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.

We rejected the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
522 cases
  • People v. Etherly, 1-01-4166.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • November 21, 2003
    ...... People v. Strain, 194 Ill.2d 467, 252 Ill.Dec. 65, 742 N.E.2d 315 (2000) . The circuit court found the petition frivolous and patently without merit and dismissed defendant's first-stage post-conviction petition based on waiver and res judicata. .         In People v. Boclair, 202 Ill.2d 89, 273 Ill.Dec. 560, 789 N.E.2d 734 (2002), the Illinois Supreme Court held that the circuit court may not dismiss a first-stage petition as untimely, but it did not address whether waiver or res judicata can provide the basis for first-stage dismissal. People v. McGhee and ......
  • People v. Medrano, 1–10–2440.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 13, 2014
    ...jurisdictional bar but, rather, act as a statute of limitations that can be raised, waived, or forfeited by the State. People v. Boclair, 202 Ill.2d 89, 97, 273 Ill.Dec. 560, 789 N.E.2d 734 (2002). The Act provides the following deadlines for a defendant in a noncapital case to file a petit......
  • People v. Love
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 19, 2013
    ...petition in the possession case. See People v. Love, 2013 IL App (2d) 120030–U, ¶¶ 30–34, 2013 WL 5526333. ¶ 18 In People v. Boclair, 202 Ill.2d 89, 98, 273 Ill.Dec. 560, 789 N.E.2d 734 (2002), the supreme court held that it was improper for the trial court to dismiss a petition as untimely......
  • People v. Edgeston, 2-07-1195.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • November 24, 2009
    ...first petition. We note that, because untimeliness is an affirmative defense that the State must raise or forfeit (see People v. Boclair, 202 Ill.2d 89, 99-100, 273 Ill.Dec. 560, 789 N.E.2d 734 (2002)), English would not necessarily defeat defendant's attempt to refile his first petition. I......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Objections
    • May 1, 2013
    ...838 NE2d 367 (2d Dist 2005), §4:40 People v. Bobo, 375 Ill App 3d 966, 874 NE2d 297 (1st Dist 2007), §§2:250, 13:10 People v. Boclair , 202 Ill 2d 89, 789 NE2d 734 (2002), §9:150 People v. Bole , 223 Ill App 3d 247, 585 NE2d 135 (1991), §7:100 People v. Bonds , 391 Ill App 3d 182, 908 NE2d ......
  • Witness Examination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Objections
    • May 1, 2013
    ...v. Wright , 111 Ill 2d 128, 490 NE2d 640 (1995) overruled in part on other §9:150 Illinois Objections 9-262 grounds, People v. Boclair , 202 Ill 2d 89, 789 NE2d 734 (2002); In re Estate of Roeseler , 287 Ill App 3d 1003, 679 NE2d 393 (1997). m aking tHe o bjection • When an opponent asks a ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT