People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 21 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-18-0344,4-18-0344 |
| Citation | 2020 IL App (4th) 180344 -U |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RANDY WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from Circuit Court of Vermilion County
Honorable Derek J. Girton, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court.
¶ 1 Held: We grant the Office of the State Appellate Defender's motion to withdraw as appellate counsel and affirm the circuit court's dismissal of defendant's successive postconviction petition where defendant failed to meet the cause-and-prejudice test.
¶ 2 This case comes to us on the motion of the Office of the State Appellate Defender (OSAD) to withdraw as appellate counsel on the ground no meritorious issues can be raised in this case. For the reasons that follow, we grant OSAD's motion to withdraw and affirm the circuit court's judgment.
¶ 4 A. Guilty Plea ¶ 5 On August 9, 2013, defendant, Randy Williams, pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated driving under the influence (DUI) resulting in a fatality (625 ILCS 5/11-501(d)(1)(F) (West 2010)). In exchange for his plea, the State agreed to recommend a sentencing cap of 10 years' incarceration and to dismiss other charges against defendant. The State presented the following factual basis:
Defendant agreed to the factual basis, and the court accepted defendant's plea. Defendant was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment with a 2-year period of mandatory supervised release (MSR).
¶ 7 On September 16, 2013, defendant filed a notice of appeal. This court granted defendant's agreed motion for summary remand with directions "that the defendant be given proper admonishments pursuant to [Illinois] Supreme Court Rule 605(c) [(eff. Oct. 1, 2001)] so that it can be clear that he must file a post-plea motion in compliance with [Illinois] Supreme Court Rule 604(d) [(eff. Feb. 6, 2013)]." People v. Williams, No. 4-13-0789 (Jan. 3, 2014) (). No further direct appeal was taken.
¶ 9 On March 13, 2015, defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition. Defendant alleged his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to (1) inform defendant of his right to deny the allegations, (2) inform defendant his guilty plea could be used against him in a civil proceeding, (3) present mitigating evidence about his psychiatric state at sentencing, and (4) present character witnesses at sentencing. Defendant also alleged the circuit court failed to adequately admonish him as to his two-year term of MSR. The circuit court summarily dismissed defendant's petition as frivolous and patently without merit. On appeal, this court affirmed the dismissal of defendant's postconviction petition but vacated erroneously imposed fines. People v. Williams, 2017 IL App (4th) 150405-U.
¶ 10 On July 13, 2015, while his appeal of the dismissal of his first postconviction petition was pending, defendant filed a pleading titled " 'First Amended Portion' of 'Post Coniction [sic] Relief.' " In his amended petition, defendant incorporated his original petition and added claims of disproportionate sentencing and equal protection violations by the circuit court. In addition, defendant made a claim of actual innocence, contending the toxicology report showed the substances were metabolized and therefore not a factor in the accident. The circuitcourt took no action on defendant's first amended postconviction petition, citing lack of jurisdiction where defendant's original petition was on appeal.
¶ 12 On January 25, 2016, defendant filed a petition for relief from judgment pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2014)), alleging his mittimus cited the incorrect offense. The circuit court agreed and amended the mittimus.
¶ 14 On January 25, 2018, defendant filed the instant postconviction petition. Defendant first cited the First District's decision in People v. Eubanks, 2017 IL App (1st) 142837, 124 N.E.3d 977, which held the statute permitting warrantless, nonconsensual blood and urine tests in specific circumstances facially unconstitutional. Defendant stated that, in his case, no warrant was issued and he did not sign a consent form. Defendant then argued the State failed to meet its burden to prove prescribed medication and treatment did not affect the accuracy of the blood test, concluding all original charges were void. In support of his argument, defendant attached a newspaper article discussing the Eubanks decision and a copy of the opinion.
¶ 15 Defendant next asserted the blood test was erroneously admitted, as the State failed to establish the necessary foundation to establish the accuracy of the blood test. Defendant argued the State failed to prove "prescribed treatment or medication" did not affect the accuracy of the blood test. Defendant stated blood or urine tests done while he was at the hospital only showed cannabinoids and opiates in his system and he was given 13 different medications several hours prior to the blood test requested by the sheriff's department. He asserted he tested positive for a cocaine metabolite after he was given the 13 medications and no cocaine metabolite was found in his urine. Defendant also stated the cannabinoid in his system wassynthetic cannabis purchased legally from a gas station. In addition, defendant argued his prescription medication was never brought to the attention of the court. Defendant contended his due process rights were violated and the State's Attorney and his defense counsel prejudiced him when the State failed to prove prescribed medication and treatment did not affect the accuracy of defendant's tests. In support of his arguments, defendant attached an excerpt of the deposition of Sergeant Seth Moody from a related civil case, the Vermilion County Sheriff's Department Investigative Report from Sergeant Moody, the investigative report detailing defendant's blood and urine test results, the related laboratory reports, and medical records from defendant's hospital treatment.
¶ 16 Defendant next argued he never consented to blood and urine testing, reiterating his claim under Eubanks. Defendant stated there were no witnesses to disprove his claim he did not give consent and argued he could not have given consent considering his brain injury and the various medications given to him. In support of his arguments, defendant attached a portion of Sergeant Moody's deposition and an affidavit averring defendant did not sign any type of consent form.
¶ 17 Defendant next argued defense counsel was deficient by failing to file a motion to dismiss the charges against defendant after learning the State failed to meet its burden to prove the prescribed treatment or medication did not affect the accuracy of his blood and urine tests.
¶ 18 Defendant next claimed the circuit court erred by accepting his guilty plea without an affirmative showing the plea was voluntary and intelligent. Defendant asserted the circuit court should have conducted a competency hearing and defendant had a history of mental illness, drug problems, and head trauma. In support of his argument, defendant attached a compilation of various inmate medical reports.
¶ 19 Finally, defendant claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that defense counsel (1) did not hold the State to its burden to prove the accuracy of his blood tests and (2) did not investigate whether the nurse violated hospital policy by giving Sergeant Moody his blood and urine samples. Defendant asserted defense counsel's performance called into question the voluntary and intelligent nature of his guilty plea.
¶ 20 On April 6, 2018, the circuit court treated defendant's petition as a successive postconviction petition filed without leave of the court. The court reviewed the petition and found it did not raise any issue that would not have been known to defendant at the time of his initial postconviction petition. The court dismissed defendant's petition as "late filed and frivolous."
¶ 21 On April 20, 2018, defendant filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal of his successive postconviction petition. The circuit court denied the motion to reconsider.
¶ 22 On May 14, 2018, defendant appealed the circuit court's summary dismissal of his successive postconviction petition. On May 16, 2018, this court appointed OSAD to represent defendant. In February 2020, OSAD filed a motion to withdraw, alleging no meritorious issue could be...
To continue reading
Request your trial