People v. Meeks

• Decision Date: 23 July 1975
• Docket Number: No. 59752,59752
• Citation: 334 N.E.2d 253,31 Ill.App.3d 396
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Respondent-Appellee, v. Phillip MEEKS, Petitioner-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 253

334 N.E.2d 253

31 Ill.App.3d 396

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Respondent-Appellee, v. Phillip MEEKS, Petitioner-Appellant.

No. 59752.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division.

July 23, 1975.

Kenneth N. Flaxman, Durham, N.C., Thomas R. Meites, Chicago, for petitioner-appellant.

Bernard Carey, State's Atty., County of Cook (Laurence J. Bolon, Donald M. Devlin, Paul B. Linton, William Kenny, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for respondent-appellee.

BURMAN, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court dismissing a second petition for relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 122--1 Et seq.). Defendant, Phillip Meeks, sought relief from his conviction on November 10, 1969, of one count of murder and three counts of aggravated battery. He was sentenced to serve a term of 30 to 60 years on the murder charge, five to ten years on one count of aggravated battery, and two to five years on each of the other two counts of aggravated battery, all sentences to run concurrently. On direct appeal to this court, the judgment was affirmed. (People v. Meeks, 11 Ill.App.3d 973, 297 N.E.2d 705).

During the pendency of his appeal, defendant filed two collateral proceedings in the circuit court of Cook County and one such proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Defendant first filed a Pro se petition in the circuit court in the nature of a Section 72 petition (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 110, par. 72) alleging newly discovered evidence. Thereafter, on February 25, 1971, defendant filed a Pro se post-conviction petition (designated P.C. 2156) alleging that his conviction was obtained through the knowing use of perjured testimony. The Public Defender was appointed to represent him. Defendant objected to the appointment and expressed a desire to argue the matter Pro se. To accommodate defendant, Judge L. Sheldon Brown entered an order on March 27, 1971, requiring that he be returned from the penitentiary so that he could represent himself on the two petitions. On May 5, 1971, defendant appeared before Judge Brown and the Public Defender was present to assist him. Rather than argue the merits of his petitions, defendant moved for a change of venue on the grounds that Judge Brown, who was the trial judge, was biased and a potential witness. In support thereof, defendant alleged that certain In camera conversations between the judge and the attorneys were held off the record at trial, and that Judge Brown could testify as to the contents of those conversations which might have prejudiced him. Defendant further presented an amended petition in which he alleged that the court showed favoritism to the State. Judge Brown granted his request for a change of venue and the cause was transferred to Judge Joseph A. Power, the presiding judge of the Criminal Court. Defendant was remanded to the penitentiary.

Prior to the hearing on the petitions, the Illinois Defender Project filed an appearance on behalf of defendant. Defendant objected to representation by the Project and leave to withdraw was filed by them. On October 14, 1971, Judge Power held a hearing on the Section 72 petition and post-conviction petition 2156. Defendant was represented by the Public Defender. The State moved to dismiss the petitions and argued that all points raised in the petitions could have been raised on the then pending direct appeal, and that defendant failed to raise any valid constitutional issue. The court sustained the motion to dismiss.

It appears from the record that defendant did not receive timely notice of the dismissal order as required by Supreme Court Rule 651. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 110A, par. 651). He did, however, receive statutory notice on July 10, 1972. No appeal was taken from the dismissal of his petition; rather, defendant used the untimely notice as the basis for a civil rights action which he filed on August 23, 1972, in the United States District Court (Phillip Meeks v. Matthew J. Danaher.) In his suit defendant alleged that the clerk of the circuit court knowingly withheld the required Rule 651 notice. The suit was dismissed on the ground that defendant had failed to exhaust state court remedies. The court based its decision on the belief that defendant could file a second postconviction petition under the authority of People v. Core, 48 Ill.2d 544, 272 N.E.2d 12. The court noted that defendant should not be precluded from post-conviction relief by reason of the untimely Rule 651 notice.

After defendant's conviction was affirmed on appeal, he filed a second Pro se post-conviction petition (designated P.C. 2575) in which he alleged that he had not received timely notice of either the State's motion to dismiss his first petition or the grant of that motion on October 14, 1971. He further alleged Inter alia the knowing use of perjured testimony, the suppression by the State of favorable evidence, and the incompetency of trial counsel (his private counsel). Attached to the petition was a lengthy memorandum of law, and a request that the cause not be heard by two named judges. The Public Defender was appointed and filed an appearance on defendant's behalf. Defendant filed an objection to the appointment. The State moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds of Res judicata and waiver because his previous petition had been heard and denied on October 14, 1971, and defendant never appealed the dismissal. On August 23, 1973, the court sustained the motion, noting that defendant could have filed a late notice of appeal.

On September 5, 1973, defendant filed a third post-conviction petition (designated P.C. 2632) which was in reality a petition for a rehearing on the dismissal of the former post-conviction petition 2575. The Public Defender was appointed to represent defendant. The case was called on October 11, 1973, and after argument by the attorneys, the petition was dismissed. Defendant then obtained volunteer counsel, and leave to file a late notice of appeal from the dismissal of post-conviction petition 2575 was granted by this court.

On this appeal defendant first contends that post-conviction petition 2575 is not barred by the doctrine of Res judicata. He points out that in criminal cases notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of final judgment (Supreme Court Rule 606(b), Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 110A, par. 606(b)), and that leave to file late notice of appeal must be sought within six months thereafter (Supreme Court Rule 606(c), Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 110A, par. 606(c)). Defendant argues that since notice of dismissal of his first petition was not transmitted to him until after the expiration of the time for perfection of an appeal, he should not be precluded from filing a second post-conviction petition.

In People v. Brown, 54 Ill.2d 25, 294 N.E.2d 267, our Supreme Court held that a reviewing court may grant leave to appeal on motion supported by a showing of reasonable excuse for failure to file a timely notice of appeal. We can think of no better excuse than defendant's untimely receipt of the required Rule 651 notice. Thus, defendant did have the right to file a late notice of appeal. However, after receiving notice of judgment approximately nine months after its entry, defendant chose not to appeal therefrom. We hold therefore, that the order of dismissal entered on October 14, 1971, by the circuit court was a final order entitled to the doctrine of Res judicata. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 122--3), and that the dismissal of the subsequent post-conviction petitions on that ground was proper. We reject defendant's argument that this court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a late notice of appeal because defendant received notice after the six months allowed by Rule 606(c).

Assuming arguendo that the dismissal order was not a final judgment and that fundamental fairness requires that defendant not be precluded on this ground from filing a second post-conviction petition, we consider the remaining contentions of the parties. Defendant contends that without an evidentiary hearing it cannot be determined whether his conviction was obtained through the knowing use of perjured testimony, whether favorable evidence was suppressed by the State, and whether his private trial counsel was incompetent. The State counters that the defendant has waived his right to raise these matters in his second post-conviction petition because these are allegations that could have been raised on direct appeal. The State further submits that even if this be not true, defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the grounds alleged in his petition.

The purpose of a post-conviction hearing is to test the constitutional integrity of proceedings which result in a conviction and to provide a remedy to those persons whose substantial constitutional rights have been violated. It is not intended to provide a defendant with a second review of matters which have already been considered or could have been considered, since the piecemeal invocation of post-conviction remedies is to be discouraged. Thus, it is long settled that where a defendant has taken a direct appeal, he is barred from raising in subsequent post-conviction petitions all claims that were raised or could have been raised in his direct appeal. People v. Agnello, 35 Ill.2d 611, 221 N.E.2d 658, Ciucci v. People, 21 Ill.2d 81,...