People v. Bradley

• Decision Date: 02 October 2017
• Docket Number: NO. 4-15-0527,4-15-0527
• Citation: 85 N.E.3d 591,2017 IL App (4th) 150527
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joanis M. BRADLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2017 IL App (4th) 150527

85 N.E.3d 591

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Joanis M. BRADLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 4-15-0527

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

October 2, 2017

Michael J. Pelletier, Jacqueline L. Bullard, and Martin J. Ryan, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Springfield, for appellant.

Julia Rietz, State's Attorney, of Urbana (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and David Mannchen, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant, Joanis M. Bradley, appeals from the dismissal of his pro se petition for relief from judgment under section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Civil Code) ( 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2014) ), arguing (1) his due process rights were violated when the trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss without giving him an opportunity to respond, (2) his petition was not ripe for adjudication at the time it was dismissed, and (3) the circuit clerk improperly imposed fines against him. We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 In February 2008, a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder ( 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2) (West 2006)). In April 2008, the trial court sentenced defendant to 75 years' imprisonment, which included a 25-year sentencing enhancement for personally discharging a firearm that caused the victim's death. The court did not impose any fines against defendant. Defendant's conviction and sentence were later affirmed on appeal and survived a collateral attack. See People v. Bradley, No. 4-08-0427, 391 Ill.App.3d 1134, 367 Ill.Dec. 845, 982 N.E.2d 995 (July 30, 2009) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23 ) (affirming on direct review); People v. Bradley, 2011 IL App (4th) 100580-U, 2011 WL 10482155 (affirming summary dismissal of defendant's postconviction petition).

¶ 4 In April 2015, defendant filed a pro se petition for relief from judgment under section 2-1401 of the Civil Code ( 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2014) ). In his petition, defendant argued his 25-year sentencing enhancement was void because the trial court did not have the authority to impose the enhancement when no jury instruction or specific finding from the jury was made indicating the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt he had personally discharged the firearm causing the victim's death.

¶ 5 On May 18, 2015, the State filed a motion to dismiss defendant's section 2-1401 petition. In its motion, the State argued defendant's petition was untimely and the claim raised therein was both forfeited and meritless. That same day, the State's motion was mailed from Champaign County to defendant at Menard Correctional Center.

¶ 6 On May 20, 2015, the trial court entered a written order dismissing defendant's section 2-1401 petition. In its order, the court indicated it considered the State's motion to dismiss and agreed with its arguments.

¶ 7 This appeal followed.

¶ 8 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 9 On appeal, defendant argues this court should (1) reverse the trial court's dismissal of his section 2-1401 petition and remand for further proceedings and (2) vacate fines improperly imposed against him by the circuit clerk. The State disagrees.

¶ 10 A. Trial Court's Dismissal of Defendant's Section 2-1401 Petition

¶ 11 Defendant argues, citing Merneigh v. Lane, 87 Ill. App. 3d 852, 854, 42 Ill.Dec. 704, 409 N.E.2d 319, 320 (1980), this court should reverse the trial court's dismissal of his section 2-1401 petition and remand for further proceedings because his due process rights were violated when the court granted the State's motion to dismiss without giving him an opportunity to respond. Defendant also argues, citing People v. Laugharn, 233 Ill. 2d 318, 323, 330 Ill.Dec. 780, 909 N.E.2d 802, 805 (2009), and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 182(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 1967), a reversal and remand is warranted, as his petition was not ripe for adjudication at the time it was dismissed. On either basis, defendant asserts this court should reverse and remand without consideration of the merits of his petition.

¶ 12 The State concedes the trial court "acted prematurely" in dismissing defendant's section 2-1401 petition by not allowing defendant the opportunity to respond to its motion to dismiss. The State maintains, however, "any procedural error" in the court's dismissal does not require remand as defendant's petition fails to state a cause of action and cannot be amended to state a valid basis for relief. Therefore, the State argues, defendant could "not have been prejudiced by the court's premature dismissal of his petition."

¶ 13 Absent an evidentiary hearing, we review the dismissal of a section 2-1401 petition de novo. People v. Garza, 2014 IL App (4th) 120882, ¶ 18, 378 Ill.Dec. 860, 5 N.E.3d 240. Likewise, we review a claim of the denial of due process de novo. In re Shirley M., 368 Ill. App. 3d 1187, 1190, 307 Ill.Dec. 699, 860 N.E.2d 353, 356 (2006).

¶ 14 Section 2-1401 of the Civil Code ( 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2014) ) provides a comprehensive, statutory procedure allowing for the vacatur of final judgments older than 30 days. People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1, 7, 312 Ill.Dec. 617, 871 N.E.2d 17, 22 (2007). Proceedings under section 2-1401 are subject to the civil practice rules. Id. at 8, 312 Ill.Dec. 617, 871 N.E.2d at 23. Section 2-1401 petitions "are essentially complaints inviting responsive pleadings." Id. The State may answer the petition, move to dismiss it, or ignore it. See generally Laugharn, 233 Ill. 2d at 323, 330 Ill.Dec. 780, 909 N.E.2d at 805.

¶ 15 An individual's right to procedural due process is guaranteed by the United States and Illinois Constitutions. See U.S. Const., amend. XIV, § 1 ; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2. "Due process is a flexible concept"; not all circumstances call for the same type of procedure. People ex rel. Birkett v. Konetski, 233 Ill. 2d 185, 201, 330 Ill.Dec. 761, 909 N.E.2d 783, 796 (2009). "The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard, and that right ‘has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is pending.’ " BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Mitchell, 2014 IL 116311, ¶ 28, 379 Ill.Dec. 85, 6 N.E.3d 162 (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) ); see also In re D.W., 214 Ill. 2d 289, 316, 292 Ill.Dec. 937, 827 N.E.2d 466, 484 (2005) (Due process requires "the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.").

¶ 16 It is well established that due process does not allow a trial court to grant a motion to dismiss a complaint without allowing the opposing party notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See, e.g., Berg v. Mid-America Industrial, Inc., 293 Ill. App. 3d 731, 735, 228 Ill.Dec. 1, 688 N.E.2d 699, 702 (1997) ("It would be unjust, unfair, and inequitable to allow the dismissal order to stand because, from the foregoing litany of events, it is unclear that plaintiffs received proper notice of the [hearing in which the trial court granted the motion to dismiss]."); Alper Services, Inc. v. Wilson, 85 Ill. App. 3d 908, 911, 41 Ill.Dec. 179, 407 N.E.2d 677, 680 (1980) ( "[P]laintiffs[ ] *** were not adequately forewarned that they would be asked to defend against a motion to dismiss" and were not given "an adequate opportunity to do so.").

¶ 17 In Merneigh, 87 Ill. App. 3d at 854, 42 Ill.Dec. 704, 409 N.E.2d at 320, the Fifth District held the inmate petitioner was denied due process when the trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss the petitioner's mandamus petition without giving him notice of the motion to dismiss and an opportunity to respond. The court noted basic due process required the petitioner to have, inter alia, "a meaningful opportunity to respond to the motion by submitting a written memorandum in opposition thereto." Id.

¶ 18 In People v. Gaines, 335 Ill. App. 3d 292, 296, 269 Ill.Dec. 350, 780 N.E.2d 822, 825 (2002), abrogated on other grounds by Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 12, 312 Ill.Dec. 617, 871 N.E.2d at 25, the Second District held the defendant's due process rights were violated when the trial court dismissed a section 2-1401 petition after hearing a motion by the State and not allowing the defendant the opportunity to respond. The court again recognized the "basic notions of fairness dictate that the defendant be afforded notice of, and an opportunity to respond to, any motion or responsive pleading by the State." Id.

¶ 19 We hold due process bars a trial court from granting an opposing party's motion to dismiss a section 2-1401 petition without allowing the petitioner notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond. Here, two days after the State filed its motion to dismiss, the trial court considered the State's motion and dismissed defendant's petition based on its arguments. The record is absent of any indication defendant was given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the State's motion. This was a violation of his due process rights.

¶ 20 The State contends we need not remand the matter as the trial court's "procedural error" was not prejudicial. In support, the State cites People v. Malloy, 374 Ill. App. 3d 820, 313 Ill.Dec. 380, 872 N.E.2d 140 (2007), Owens v. Snyder, 349 Ill. App. 3d 35, 285 Ill.Dec. 251, 811 N.E.2d 738 (2004), and People v. Taylor, 349 Ill. App. 3d 718, 285 Ill.Dec. 761, 812 N.E.2d 581 (2004). In none of these cases, however, did the court dispose of a pleading based on an opposing party's motion without giving the nonmovant an opportunity to respond. The State also asserts remand is not required based on Merneigh, which it asserts held a remand is unnecessary where it appears from the complaint the deficiency cannot be overcome by amendment. The State mischaracterizes the court's holding in Merneigh. There, the court plainly held remand was required because the...