People v. Bradley, 85 N.E.3d 591

In 2008 Joanis M. Bradley was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 75 years, including a 25-year firearm enhancement; no fines were imposed by the trial judge.
Bradley’s convictions and prior collateral challenges were previously affirmed.
In April 2015 Bradley filed a pro se 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 petition claiming the 25-year enhancement was void because no jury finding or instruction proved he personally discharged the firearm beyond a reasonable doubt.
The State filed a motion to dismiss Bradley’s 2-1401 petition on May 18, 2015; the motion was mailed to Bradley in custody that same day.
Two days later the trial court granted the State’s motion and dismissed the petition; the record contains no indication Bradley was given notice of a hearing or opportunity to respond.
Bradley also challenged several fines that the circuit clerk had assessed post-judgment ($50 court finance, $10 arrestee medical, $5 drug court program), arguing they were improperly imposed by the clerk and thus void.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did dismissal of the 2-1401 petition without giving Bradley an opportunity to respond violate due process?	State: dismissal was proper; any procedural error was harmless because the petition lacked merit.	Bradley: trial court acted prematurely and violated due process by not allowing him to respond; petition was not ripe for adjudication.	Reversed and remanded: court held due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond before granting a motion to dismiss a 2-1401 petition.
Was the petition ripe when dismissed?	State: argued merits and timeliness defeat petition.	Bradley: petition was not ripe; he had no opportunity to respond.	Court did not decide ripeness because remand was required on due process grounds.
Are fines imposed by the circuit clerk void?	State: contended clerk-imposed fines are voidable and not void (forfeited argument).	Bradley: clerk-imposed assessments are fines, void when imposed without judicial authorization, and may be challenged at any time.	Vacated the $50 court finance, $10 arrestee medical, and $5 drug court program assessments because the clerk imposed them without judicial authorization.
Should the merits of Bradley’s 2-1401 petition be addressed on appeal?	State: urged affirmance on the merits despite procedural lapse.	Bradley: sought remand without merits review.	Court remanded for further proceedings without addressing merits.

Merneigh v. Lane, 87 Ill. App. 3d 852 (holding a petitioner must receive notice and opportunity to respond to a motion to dismiss)
People v. Laugharn, 233 Ill. 2d 318 (describing 2-1401 practice and civil procedure applicability)
People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1 (section 2-1401 provides comprehensive procedure for vacating final judgments)
People v. Gaines, 335 Ill. App. 3d 292 (trial court violated due process by dismissing a 2-1401 petition after a state motion without allowing defendant to respond)
People v. Daily, 74 N.E.3d 15 (4th Dist. 2016) (clerk-imposed assessments are fines when not imposed by a judge and are void)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (establishing notice as a fundamental component of due process)