People v. English

• Docket Number: Docket No. 128077
• Decision Date: 27 November 2023
• Citation: 226 N.E.3d 1204
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Johnny ENGLISH, Appellant.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

226 N.E.3d 1204

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Johnny ENGLISH, Appellant.

2023 IL 128077

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,

v.Johnny ENGLISH, Appellant.

(Docket No. 128077)

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed June 15, 2023

Modified upon Denial of Rehearing November 27, 2023

James E. Chadd, State Appellate Defender, Douglas R. Hoff, Deputy Defender, and Therese Bissell and Ross E. Allen, Assistant Appellate Defenders, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Springfield (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Katherine M. Doersch and Aaron M. Williams, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

JUSTICE NEVILLEdelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1PetitionerJohnny English filed a motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act)(725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq.(West 2018)).The trial court denied petitioner’s motion on August 3, 2020, which made his notice of appeal due in the circuit court by September 2, 2020.Petitioner filed a notice of appeal in the circuit court that was file-stamped on September 10, 2020.The envelope containing the notice of appeal had a postage meter stamp dated September 1, 2020.Under this court’s version of the mailbox rule (Ill.S. Ct. R. 373(eff. July 1, 2017)), the notice of appeal was timely if the postage meter stamp is accepted to prove the "time of mailing."The appellate court dismissed petitioner’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the postage meter stamp was insufficient to prove that petitioner mailed his notice of appeal before the due date.2021 IL App (1st) 201016-U, ¶¶ 38-41, 2021 WL 5494005.

¶ 2We allowed petitioner’s petition for leave to appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 315(eff. Oct. 1, 2021).For the following reasons, we agree with the appellate court and hold that the sole means of establishing "time of mailing" under Rule 373 in the case of a pro se incarcerated litigant is by certification as described in Rule 12(b)(6)(Ill.S. Ct. R. 12(b)(6)(eff. July 1, 2017)).Thus, we affirm the appellate court’s judgment.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Because this case involves only a question of the appellate court’s jurisdiction to hear petitioner’s appeal, we recite only those facts relevant to our disposition.The facts of the offense and sentencing are fully set out in the appellate court’s decision affirming petitioner’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal (People v. English, 302 Ill. App. 3d 1090, 254 Ill.Dec. 152, 746 N.E.2d 909(table)(unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23)).

¶ 5 In 1995, then-18-year-old petitioner was charged with, among other things, armed robbery, first degree murder, and attempted first degree murder for his involvement in the death of Frank Klepacki and the shooting of Casey Klepacki.After a bench trial, petitioner was found guilty of the offenses.Petitioner was sentenced to an extended term of 70 years in prison for first degree murder, to be served concurrently with 30-year sentences for attempted first degree murder and armed robbery.Defendant filed a direct appeal, an initial postconviction petition(People v. English,346 Ill. App. 3d 1174, 310 Ill.Dec. 550, 866 N.E.2d 711(table)(unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23)), and a successive postconviction petition(People v. English,403 Ill. App. 3d 121, 342 Ill.Dec. 780, 933 N.E.2d 366(2010)), all to no avail.

¶ 6 On July 10, 2020, petitioner filed the pro se motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition underlying this appeal.Petitioner argued that his sentence was unconstitutional based on changes in the law regarding the sentencing of juvenile and young adult offenders.On August 3, 2020, the trial court denied petitioner’s motion for leave to file in a written order.

¶ 7Defendant filed a notice of appeal, which was file-stamped by the clerk on September 10, 2020.The envelope containing the notice of appeal bears a postage meter stamp with the date of September 1, 2020.Also with the notice of appeal was a "Notice of Mailing/Filing," which provided: "I, Johnny English, state that I have mailed the attached successive postconviction petition on August 20, 2020 by depositing the said in the mail drop box at Graham Correctional Center Mail Drop Box."The notice also stated that the notice of appeal was mailed to the State and circuit clerk of Cook County at provided addresses.

¶ 8 On September 18, 2020, the Office of the State Appellate Defender was appointed to represent petitioner on appeal.As part of the appointment order, the trial court stated that the notice of appeal was filed on September 10, 2020, which was "timely per proof of service."Citing the trial court’s order, petitioner, in his opening brief in the appellate court, stated that his notice of appeal was timely filed "pursuant to the mailbox rule."

¶ 9The appellate court disagreed.The court held that it was without jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s appeal "absent the certification of proof of service" described in section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2021 IL App (1st) 201016-U, ¶ 38, 2021 WL 5494005.The court noted the amendments to Rule 373, which eliminated postmarks as proof of mailing " ‘entirely, even legible ones.’ "Id.¶ 36(quotingPeople v. Tolbert,2021 IL App (1st) 181654, ¶ 20, 458 Ill.Dec. 702, 197 N.E.3d 115).The court concluded that "a postmark alone is insufficient to confer jurisdiction."Id.¶ 37.The court dismissed petitioner’s appeal.Id.¶ 42.This court granted petitioner’s petition for leave to appeal.Ill.S. Ct. R. 315(a)(eff. Oct. 1, 2021).

¶ 10 II.ANALYSIS

¶ 11Petitioner argues that the postage meter stamp showing that he placed his notice of appeal in the mail prior to the due date was sufficient to prove that he filed his notice of appeal timely, thereby establishing jurisdiction in the appellate court.Petitioner concedes that he did not file a certificate as required by our Rules 373and12(b)(6) but argues that equity requires that we accept the dated postage meter stamp as the "time of mailing."The State concedes that petitioner placed his notice of appeal in the mail prior to the due date but argues that petitioner’s proof of mailing was insufficient under Rule 12.The sole issue is whether a dated postage meter stamp is sufficient to prove "time of mailing" under our rules, which is the only way the appellate court could have obtained jurisdiction in this case.

¶ 12 A. Standard of Review

[1–6]¶ 13"The determination of whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to consider an appeal is a question of law, which we review de novo."People v. Vara,2018 IL 121823, ¶ 12, 425 Ill.Dec. 498, 115 N.E.3d 53.The construction of our rules is also a question of law subject to de novo review.People v. Casler,2020 IL 125117, ¶ 22, 450 Ill.Dec. 415, 181 N.E.3d 767.Our rules are to be interpreted in the same manner as statutes.In re Denzel W.,237 Ill. 2d 285, 294, 341 Ill.Dec. 460, 930 N.E.2d 974(2010).Our rules "have the force of law" and are "not aspirational."Bright v. Dicke,166 Ill. 2d 204, 210, 209 Ill.Dec. 735, 652 N.E.2d 275(1995).The primary concern is to give effect to our intent, most often through the "plain and ordinary meaning" of the rule.People v. Glisson,202 Ill. 2d 499, 504, 270 Ill.Dec. 57, 782 N.E.2d 251(2002).When a rule is "plain and unambiguous, we may not depart from [its] terms by reading into it exceptions, limitations, or conditions [this court] did not express, nor may we add provisions not found in the [rule]."Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp.,2019 IL 123186, ¶ 24, 432 Ill.Dec. 654, 129 N.E.3d 1197.

¶ 14 B. Supreme Court Rules Governing the Filing of a Notice of Appeal

¶ 15 The timely filing of a notice of appeal is the only jurisdictional step in the perfection of an appeal.Ill. S. Ct. R. 606(a)(eff. July 1, 2017).Rule 606(b) provides that "the notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the circuit court within 30 days after the entry of the final judgment appealed from."Ill.S. Ct. R. 606(b)(eff. July 1, 2017).Rule 373 provides that the "time of filing" is the date the notice of appeal is "actually received" by the clerk of the circuit court.Ill. S. Ct. Rs. 373, 612(b)(18)(making Rule 373 applicable to criminal appeals)(eff. July 1, 2017).Under this court’s version of the mailbox rule, if the notice of appeal is received by the clerk after the due date, "the time of mailing by an incarcerated, self-represented litigant shall be deemed the time of filing."Ill.S. Ct. R. 373(eff. July 1, 2017).Rule 373 further provides that "[p]roof of mailing shall be as provided in Rule 12."Id.

¶ 16 Rule 12(b)(6) provides:

"Service is proved ***

* * **** in case of service by mail by a self-represented litigant residing in a correctional facility, by certification under section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the person who deposited the document in the institutional mail, stating the time and place of deposit and the complete address to which the document was to be delivered."Ill.S. Ct. R. 12(b)(6)(eff. July 1, 2017).

Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires a person "having knowledge of the matters stated in a pleading, affidavit or other document" to

"subscribe to a certification in substantially the following form: Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true."735 ILCS 5/1-109(West 2018).

When completed, the verification has the "same force and effect as though subscribed and sworn to under oath."...