People v. Harris

• Decision Date: 19 January 2007
• Docket Number: No. 102017.,102017.
• Citation: 308 Ill.Dec. 757,862 N.E.2d 960,224 Ill.2d 115
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Charles HARRIS, Appellant.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

862 N.E.2d 960

224 Ill.2d 115

308 Ill.Dec. 757

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Charles HARRIS, Appellant.

No. 102017.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January 19, 2007.

Charles M. Schiedel, Deputy Defender, Kim Robert Fawcett, Assistant Appellate Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Chicago, for appellant.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Springfield, Julia Rietz, State's Attorney, Urbana (Gary Feinerman, Solicitor General, Michael M. Glick, Katherine D. Saunders, Assistant Attorneys General, Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

Chief Justice THOMAS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion:

Defendant, Charles Harris, was convicted of first degree murder. The circuit court of Champaign County sentenced him to 55 years' imprisonment. While his direct appeal was pending, defendant filed a pro se petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (the Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2002)). The trial court summarily dismissed the petition as frivolous and patently without merit. The Appellate Court, Fourth District, affirmed. No. 4-02-1005 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). We granted defendant's petition for leave to appeal (210 Ill.2d R. 315), and we now affirm.

BACKGROUND

On May 17, 1999, defendant was convicted of the first degree murder of Barry Robinson. Defendant's trial attorney, Malcolm Barnes, filed a posttrial motion and a motion to withdraw as counsel, and defendant moved pro se for a new trial, withdrawal of counsel, and appointment of new counsel. The trial court granted Barnes' motion to withdraw as counsel, and defendant obtained private counsel. Defendant then filed an amended posttrial motion. Following a hearing, the trial court denied all of defendant's motions. In September 1999, the trial court sentenced defendant to 55 years' imprisonment.

On August 30, 2002, defendant placed a pro se petition for postconviction relief in the mail, and it was file stamped on September 4, 2002. In the petition, defendant noted that the three-year statute of limitations for filing a postconviction petition was set to expire on September 1, 2002, and that his direct appeal still had not been decided. He raised the following claims in the petition: (1) he was denied his constitutional right to an unbiased jury when the trial court and counsel failed to propound voir dire questions that would expose juror biases towards illegal drugs, drug users, and drug dealers; (2) trial counsel was ineffective in numerous respects; (3) he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to dismiss jurors on the basis of race; (4) he was denied a fair trial because of a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); (5) he was denied due process and a fair trial by the cumulative and synergistic effects of claims one through four; and (6) he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel when appellate counsel failed to timely file a brief and also failed to raise several issues. In the petition's conclusion and prayer for relief, defendant requested that the court: (1) set a date to resolve preliminary matters; (2) grant him sufficient time and leave to amend and/or supplement the petition; (3) grant him authority to obtain subpoenas for discovery; (4) appoint counsel to represent him; (5) order an evidentiary hearing; and (6) enter any other appropriate order.

Attached to the petition were several documents. Defendant attached his own affidavit, in which he denied any knowledge of sting operations involving the murder victim. He also listed several shortcomings of his trial attorney, including a complaint that the attorney did not interview and present the testimony of eight witnesses who could have helped his case. He listed the proposed witnesses and what he believed they would have testified to. Additionally, he attached documents purporting to be affidavits from these eight witnesses, but none of them were signed. Defendant explained that he had mailed the proposed affidavits to these witnesses, but that no one had signed them and mailed them back. He claimed, however, that no one had expressly refused to sign the affidavits. He also attached documents to support his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to explore an undisclosed deal that the State had with witness Billy Mullins. The documents showed that a petition to revoke Mullins' probation had been dismissed.

On September 27, 2002, the trial court summarily dismissed the petition, finding it frivolous and patently without merit. The court explained its findings in a written order. In addition to finding all of the claims substantively without merit, the trial court noted that the petition was not properly supported by "affidavits, records, or other evidence" as required by section 122-2 of the Act (725 ILCS 5/122-2 (West 2002)). The court found that the purported affidavits did not qualify as affidavits under the Act because they were unsigned; rather, they were merely what defendant wanted these people to say. Addressing defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, the trial court wrote the following:

"In claim number six, the Petitioner alleges a substantial violation of his constitutional rights when he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel. Since this matter is still on appeal and there has been no ruling or holding by the Fourth District Appellate Court, this court does not know if appellate counsel is or was ineffective. Also, the court would note that since a number of allegations of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel were that appellate counsel did not raise some of the previously alleged errors of trial counsel, the court cannot find appellate counsel ineffective if trial counsel was not found ineffective."

Defendant appealed, and the appellate court ordered the appeal stayed pending resolution of the direct appeal. On October 19, 2004, the appellate court decided defendant's direct appeal. People v. Harris, No. 4-99-0800 (2004) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). In the direct appeal, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. The stay was then lifted, and the court decided the appeal from the dismissal of defendant's postconviction petition on November 17, 2005. No. 4-02-1005 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).

The appellate court first addressed defendant's argument that the trial court erred in summarily dismissing his petition while his direct appeal was pending. According to the defendant, the trial court either should have (1) held the petition in abeyance until the conclusion of the direct appeal; or (2) dismissed the petition without prejudice, with leave to file a new petition when the direct appeal had concluded. Defendant relied on People v. Williams, 308 Ill.App.3d 567, 243 Ill.Dec. 921, 724 N.E.2d 230 (1999), a decision of the Appellate Court, Fifth District. In Williams, the court reversed a trial court's summary dismissal of a postconviction petition that had been filed before briefs had been filed in the direct appeal. The trial court in that case found that the petition was patently without merit and that the petition's allegations related to issues that should be addressed on direct appeal. The Fifth District held:

"[T]he trial court would have better served the interests of justice by holding the petition in abeyance until appellate counsel filed a brief in the direct appeal or by dismissing the petition `without prejudice,' thus allowing defendant the opportunity to refile his postconviction petition once he determined what issues were raised by his counsel in the direct appeal." Williams, 308 Ill.App.3d at 571-72, 243 Ill.Dec. 921, 724 N.E.2d 230.

In this case, the Fourth District disagreed with Williams. First, the court noted that section 122-2.1(a)(2) of the Act (725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2002)) does not contemplate dismissals without prejudice. If the circuit court determines pursuant to its initial review that the petition should be dismissed, that dismissal order is a final judgment. 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2002). The court also noted that, in an earlier opinion, the Fifth District had rejected the proposition that a summary dismissal may be based solely on the pendency of a direct appeal; rather, a dismissal must be based on the specific allegations contained in the petition. See People v. Edsall, 94 Ill.App.3d 469, 473, 49 Ill.Dec. 923, 418 N.E.2d 943 (1981). As for holding the petition in abeyance, the court noted that the Act contained no provision barring a trial court from considering a petition while a direct appeal of the conviction is pending. The court held that it may be reasonable to hold a petition in abeyance when a direct appeal is pending but rejected defendant's contention that the trial court is required to do so. Rather, the court held that this was a matter within the trial court's discretion.

The court next addressed defendant's contention that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition a mere 23 days after it was file stamped, while ignoring defendant's request for a continuance, for leave to amend, and for subpoena authority for discovery. The court held that defendant's requests were merely general requests that are contained in postconviction petitions, and that defendant did not specify how much time he needed or why he needed a continuance or leave to amend. Moreover, the court believed that it would be a waste of judicial resources to require trial courts, during first-stage review, to rule on every general request by a defendant in a postconviction petition. The court noted that trial courts are required to determine within 90 days whether the petition is frivolous or patently without merit and that defendants should not be able to use general requests for continuances or leave to amend to circumvent that requirement. The court also found no error in...