People v. Cathey
147 N.E.3d 298
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- In 1992 Cathey shot Orlando Derrick; a jury convicted him of attempted first-degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm; he received concurrent 20-year sentences and his direct appeal was affirmed.
- In 2013–2015 Cathey filed collateral petitions: a pro se postconviction petition (dismissed because he had served his sentence), a June 2015 section 2-1401 petition alleging a one-act/one-crime violation, and a June 2015 petition "in nature of writ of error coram nobis" challenging a 2003 guilty plea to possession on the ground that officers planted drugs and coerced him.
- The State did not file responses to Cathey’s 2-1401 or coram nobis petitions; the trial court sua sponte dismissed both on July 22, 2015 (the 2-1401 dismissal rested on untimeliness and on the merits that the two convictions were distinct).
- On appeal the First District considered (1) whether the trial court could sua sponte dismiss a 2-1401 petition as untimely when the State never raised timeliness, (2) whether the attempted murder and aggravated-battery-with-firearm convictions violated the one-act, one-crime rule, and (3) whether Cathey’s coram nobis/2-1401 petition alleging planted evidence and threats warranted relief.
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the coram nobis petition (insufficiently conclusive new evidence and contradicted by the record), but reversed the 2-1401 dismissal and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on diligence and merits of the one-act, one-crime claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) May the trial court sua sponte dismiss a section 2-1401 petition as untimely when the State did not raise timeliness? | State: dismissal proper for untimeliness under 2-1401(c). | Cathey: State forfeited timeliness by not answering; court may not sua sponte dismiss on that ground. | Court: State forfeited; sua sponte dismissal on untimeliness was improper. |
| 2) Do attempted murder and aggravated battery with a firearm violate the one-act, one-crime rule? | State: offenses are separate (aggravated discharge vs. attempt). | Cathey: both convictions arose from the same physical act (shooting Derrick twice) and charges/closing did not apportion shots to separate offenses. | Court: Petition alleged a meritorious one-act, one-crime claim; remanded for evidentiary hearing on diligence and relief. |
| 3) Does Cathey’s coram nobis/2-1401 petition alleging officers planted drugs and threatened him present newly discovered evidence warranting relief? | State: petition untimely/forfeited (not raised below). | Cathey: press releases and convictions of the officers are new, conclusive evidence showing planting/coercion. | Court: Affirmed dismissal—new evidence was not of such conclusive character, contradicted the record, and would likely not change outcome. |
| 4) Do res judicata or forfeiture bar Cathey’s collateral claims? | State: procedural bars (res judicata, forfeiture) preclude review. | Cathey: exceptions/fundamental fairness apply; one-act claim affects integrity of judicial process. | Court: Procedural bars did not preclude review of the one-act claim (considered despite forfeiture); coram nobis claims rejected on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1 (2007) (section 2-1401 proceedings are civil in nature and may be dismissed on the pleadings when the State answers or relevant facts are admitted)
- People v. Pinkonsly, 207 Ill. 2d 555 (2003) (the State may forfeit the timeliness defense to a 2-1401 petition by not raising it below)
- People v. Crespo, 203 Ill. 2d 335 (2001) (where the indictment and prosecution treat multiple wounds or acts as a single course of conduct, multiple convictions require the State to apportion acts)
- People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368 (2004) (one-act, one-crime violations affect the integrity of the judicial process and may be reviewed as plain error despite forfeiture)
- People v. King, 66 Ill. 2d 551 (1977) (framework for analyzing whether conduct constitutes a single physical act supporting multiple offenses)
- People v. Patterson, 192 Ill. 2d 93 (2000) (newly discovered evidence of official misconduct supporting coerced confessions must be conclusive and likely to change the result to warrant an evidentiary hearing)
- Smith v. Airoom, Inc., 114 Ill. 2d 209 (1986) (elements required for relief under section 2-1401: meritorious claim and due diligence)