People v. Holliday

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 4th District Appellate » 2007 » People v. Holliday

People v. Holliday

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-05-0473 Rel

Case Date: 01/04/2007

Preview:NO. 4-05-0473 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHIOKE HOLLIDAY, Defendant-Appellant.

Filed: 1/4/07

) Appeal from ) Circuit Court of ) Macon County ) No. 97CF1660 ) ) Honorable ) John K. Greanias, ) Judge Presiding. _________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the opinion of the court: In April 1998, defendant, Chioke Holliday, pleaded guilty to one count of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 1998)), and the trial court later sentenced him to 30 years in prison. Defendant later filed a motion to withdraw his guilty

plea and reconsider his sentence, which the trial court denied. He appealed, and this court affirmed. People v. Holliday, No. 4-

01-0273 (December 18, 2002) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). In January 2005, defendant filed a document entitled, "habeas corpus petition actual innocence claim," purportedly under the habeas corpus article of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/10-101 through 10-137 (West 2004)), in which defendant claimed that he was being held unlawfully in prison. In In

March 2005, the State moved to dismiss defendant's petition. April 2005, the trial court granted the State's motion and dismissed the petition.

Defendant appeals, arguing only that the trial court erred by dismissing his habeas corpus petition because the court should have recharacterized it as a postconviction petition that should have survived first-stage scrutiny under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1 through 122-8 (West 2004)). Because we conclude that the trial court did not err by not recharacterizing defendant's petition, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND Defendant's January 2005 petition identified itself as a habeas corpus petition and stated that it was being brought pursuant to "735 ILCS 5/10-102 et seq.," the Code's habeas corpus article. The petition did not identify itself as being brought

pursuant to the provisions of the Act. In the State's March 2005 motion to dismiss defendant's petition, the State asserted, in pertinent part, that because the petition did not assert any of the grounds for habeas corpus relief set forth in section 10-124 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/10-124 (West 2004)), the trial court should dismiss it. In April 2005,

the court granted the State's motion and dismissed defendant's petition. This appeal followed. II. DEFENDANT'S CLAIM THAT THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE RECHARACTERIZED HIS HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AS A POSTCONVICTION PETITION Defendant argues that the trial court erred by dismissing his habeas corpus petition because the court should have recharacterized it as a postconviction petition. - 2 Defendant

asserts that, if the court had done so, it would have (1) found that the petition stated the gist of a meritorious claim that defendant's trial counsel was ineffective and (2) realized that the State's motion to dismiss the petition at what should have been the first stage of postconviction proceedings was improper. In making these arguments, defendant concedes that he did not raise any issues in his petition that were cognizable under the habeas corpus statute. A. The Trial Court's Authority To Recharacterize a Pleading as a Postconviction Petition In People v. Purnell, 356 Ill. App. 3d 524, 528, 825 N.E.2d 1234, 1238 (2005), the trial court recharacterized the defendant's habeas corpus petition as a postconviction petition (believing, erroneously, that it was required to do so under People v. Sturgeon, 272 Ill. App. 3d 48, 649 N.E.2d 1385 (1995)). The court then dismissed the defendant's petition as frivolous and patently without merit. We affirmed the court's dismissal of

the defendant's petition, but in doing so, we noted that the court was not required to recharacterize the defendant's habeas corpus petition as a postconviction petition under the Act. Purnell, 356 Ill. App. 3d at 528-29, 825 N.E.2d at 1238-39. We

pointed out that, although prior cases (such as Sturgeon) held that a trial court was so required, the General Assembly amended the Act in 1997 through the passage of Public Act 89-609 (Pub. Act 89-609,

Download People v. Holliday.pdf