People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 17 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1-19-1615 |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (1st) 191615,194 N.E.3d 581,457 Ill.Dec. 92 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Respondent-Appellee, v. Arturo WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
2021 IL App (1st) 191615
194 N.E.3d 581
457 Ill.Dec. 92
The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Respondent-Appellee,
v.
Arturo WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant.
No. 1-19-1615
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, SIXTH DIVISION.
Filed December 17, 2021
Rehearing Denied January 7, 2022
James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Anna C. Carlozzi, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.
Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Allen J. Spellberg, Brian A. Levitsky, and Hareena Meghani-Wakely, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
PRESIDING JUSTICE PIERCE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
¶ 1 Petitioner, Arturo Williams, appeals from the circuit court of Cook County's summary dismissal of his pro se postconviction petition. He argues his petition alleged arguable claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to argue that an aggravated vehicular hijacking conviction for an offense he committed as a juvenile could not be used as a qualifying predicate offense for an armed habitual criminal conviction. The State addresses the merits of petitioner's argument while also asserting petitioner forfeited the issue he raises on appeal. We affirm the circuit court's judgment.
¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 3 In 2014, petitioner was charged with one count of being an armed habitual criminal (AHC), two counts of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon (UUWF), and six counts of aggravated UUWF. At his bench trial, the State introduced evidence that, while being chased by police, defendant pulled a loaded handgun from his waistband and threw it over his shoulder. At trial, the State introduced certified prior convictions for aggravated vehicular hijacking (case No. 00 CR 17676 (01)) and manufacture/delivery of a controlled substance (case No. 10 CR 20465 (01)). The circuit court found petitioner guilty of AHC and of one count of UUWF. On direct appeal, we affirmed petitioner's AHC conviction over his contention that the circuit court improperly limited his cross-examination of the State's eyewitness, and we vacated the UUWF conviction under the one-act, one-crime rule. People v. Williams , 2018 IL App (1st) 160469-U, 2018 WL 5304566.
¶ 4 Petitioner filed a pro se postconviction petition and made the following allegations relevant to this appeal. Petitioner was 32 years old at the time of trial on the AHC, aggravated UUWF, and UUWF charges. His conviction for aggravated vehicular hijacking was for an offense committed in 2000, when he was 17 years old. The State did not prove all the essential elements of AHC because his aggravated vehicular hijacking conviction was more than 10 years old and could not be used to support his AHC conviction under People v. Montgomery , 47 Ill. 2d 510, 268 N.E.2d 695 (1971). His trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise any argument under Montgomery and to preserve the issue for appeal, and his appellate counsel on direct appeal was ineffective for failing to argue trial counsel's ineffective assistance.
¶ 5 The circuit court summarily dismissed the petition in a written order, finding the claims raised in the petition frivolous and patently without merit. Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal.
¶ 6 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 7 On appeal, petitioner argues that his pro se petition sufficiently stated the gist of arguable claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to
challenge the use of the aggravated vehicular hijacking conviction because it was insufficient to support an AHC conviction. He abandons his specific argument that Montgomery barred the use of the aggravated vehicular hijacking conviction. Instead, he argues that, because the aggravated vehicular hijacking offense took place when he was a juvenile, the conviction is not a qualifying predicate offense for the purposes of AHC under this court's reasoning in People v. Miles , 2020 IL App (1st) 180736, 446 Ill.Dec. 458, 170 N.E.3d 984 and People v. Gray , 2021 IL App (1st) 191086, 457 Ill.Dec. 14, 194 N.E.3d 503, both of which were decided after petitioner filed his notice of appeal from the dismissal of his postconviction petition. He argues that if a 17-year-old was charged with aggravated vehicular hijacking in 2014, the charge would have been tried and adjudicated in juvenile court, and a juvenile adjudication is not the same as a conviction for the purposes of an AHC offense. He asserts his petition raised an arguable claim that his trial counsel's performance was deficient for failing to object to the State's attempt to admit the aggravated vehicular hijacking conviction, that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue trial counsel's ineffectiveness, and that he was prejudiced because he would not have been convicted of AHC. He contends he is either entitled to a remand for second stage proceedings on his petition or, alternatively, a reversal of his AHC conviction and a remand for resentencing on his UUWF conviction.
¶ 8 At the first stage of proceedings under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/1221 et seq. (West 2000)), a pro se petition must present the gist of a constitutional claim. People v. Boclair , 202 Ill. 2d 89, 99-100, 273 Ill.Dec. 560, 789 N.E.2d 734 (2002). At the first stage, a pro se petitioner is not required to allege facts supporting a constitutional claim and the petition should be given a liberal construction. People v. Thomas , 2014 IL App (2d) 121001, ¶ 60, 385 Ill.Dec. 316, 18 N.E.3d 577. "Where defendants are acting pro se , courts should review their petitions ‘with a lenient eye, allowing borderline cases to proceed.’ " People v. Hodges , 234 Ill. 2d 1, 21, 332 Ill.Dec. 318, 912 N.E.2d 1204 (2009) (quoting Williams v. Kullman , 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 (2d Cir.1983) ). In the context of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the petition must set forth an arguable claim that counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient, and an arguable claim that petitioner was prejudiced. People v. Tate , 2012 IL 112214, ¶ 19, 366 Ill.Dec. 741, 980 N.E.2d 1100. Summary dismissal is appropriate where the claims in the petition are frivolous or patently without merit. Hodges , 234 Ill. 2d at 11-12, 332 Ill.Dec. 318, 912 N.E.2d 1204. We review de novo the circuit court's summary dismissal of a postconviction petition. Tate , 2012 IL 112214, ¶ 10, 366 Ill.Dec. 741, 980 N.E.2d 1100.
¶ 9 A. Forfeiture
¶ 10 The State argues that petitioner forfeited his specific appellate claim because he did not raise it in his petition. The petition asserted that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective because they failed to challenge the use of the aggravated vehicular hijacking conviction as a qualifying predicate conviction for the AHC offense under Montgomery because the conviction was more than 10 years old. On appeal, petitioner argues his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for not challenging the use of the aggravated vehicular hijacking conviction as a qualifying predicate offense for the AHC offense because, under the amendment to the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) and the reasoning Miles , petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the aggravated vehicular
hijacking offense, and he would have been tried and adjudicated in juvenile court. In the State's view, these are distinct claims, and we cannot consider the claim raised on appeal. We disagree.
¶ 11 The State is generally correct that "a claim not raised in a petition cannot be argued for the first time on appeal." People v. Jones , 213 Ill. 2d 498, 505, 290 Ill.Dec. 519, 821 N.E.2d 1093 (2004) (citing People v. McNeal , 194 Ill. 2d 135, 147, 252 Ill.Dec. 19, 742 N.E.2d 269 (2000) ; People v. Davis , 156 Ill. 2d 149, 158, 189 Ill.Dec. 49, 619 N.E.2d 750 (1993) ). But here, petitioner asserts in his petition and in this court that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge the use of his prior aggravated vehicular hijacking conviction as a qualifying predicate offense for his AHC offense. We acknowledge that petitioner has framed his appellate argument differently than he did in his petition, but the issue is the same: whether his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for not raising any argument that his prior conviction could not be used as a qualifying predicate offense for the AHC offense because of when the AHC offense occurred.
¶ 12 In Jones , the petitioner's petition contained the bare assertion that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel, which was not reflected on the record of his direct appeal. Jones , 213 Ill. 2d at 502, 290 Ill.Dec. 519, 821 N.E.2d 1093. The circuit court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the petitioner argued for the first time that he had not been properly admonished about his guilty plea under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605 (eff. Oct. 1, 2001). Id. The supreme court found the petitioner could not raise such a claim for the first time on appeal because it was not contained in his petition. Id. at 508, 290 Ill.Dec. 519, 821 N.E.2d 1093. The court also explained that the appellate court is not free to excuse a petitioner's forfeiture ( id. at 507, 290 Ill.Dec. 519, 821 N.E.2d 1093 ), and that the proper avenue of raising the issue is to seek leave to file a successive postconviction petition ( id. at 509, 290 Ill.Dec. 519, 821 N.E.2d 1093 ). But here, unlike in Jones , petitioner did not make a bare assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel. Instead, he alleged he was 17 years old at the time of the aggravated vehicular hijacking offense, and his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the use of that conviction as a predicate felony for his armed habitual criminal charge. The petitioner in Jones attempted to argue a claim on appeal that found no support in his petition. That is not the case here.
¶ 13 We find Thomas instructive. There, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial