People v. Bland, 961 N.E.2d 953

Defendant Bland was convicted of theft in May 2006 and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.
This court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal (unpublished order under Rule 23).
In Oct. 2009 Bland pro se filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment citing 2-1401 and 122-1 of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act.
At the trial court, the State moved to dismiss, arguing timeliness and lack of merit under either characterization.
A May 2010 hearing clarified Bland's intent to pursue a postconviction petition and the court treated the pleading as such.
In Aug. 2010 the trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the petition without appointing counsel, leading to Bland’s appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly admonished Bland before recharacterizing his pleading.	Bland contends Shellstrom required admonitions before recharacterizing.	People argues there was no sua sponte recharacterization to trigger Shellstrom warnings.	Shellstrom admonishments not required because there was no sua sponte recharacterization.
Whether the court erred by dismissing the petition without appointing counsel.	Bland argues counsel must be appointed at the first proper postconviction stage.	People contends dismissal occurred before a first-stage appointment was required.	Reversed and remanded to proceed to second-stage proceedings with appointment of counsel.

Shellstro m v. People, 216 Ill.2d 45 (2005) (recharacterization requires admonitions if sua sponte; defendant not notified)
Stoffel v. State, 389 Ill.App.3d 238 (2009) (limits of Shellstrom warnings when recharacterization is not sua sponte)
People v. Andrews, 403 Ill.App.3d 654 (2010) (three-stage postconviction process; stage definitions)
People v. Carter, 383 Ill.App.3d 795 (2008) (remanding for proper postconviction procedure when dismissal improperly handled)
People v. Torres, 228 Ill.2d 382 (2008) (first-stage dismissal standards under 122-2.1)