People v. Chatman
66 N.E.3d 415
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- In 2013 the State moved to vacate Carl Chatman’s 2004 rape conviction and the trial court ordered the conviction and sentence vacated and Chatman released.
- Chatman then moved for and received an Illinois certificate of innocence on November 19, 2013.
- Susan Riggio (the complainant) filed a 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 petition on December 29, 2014 seeking to vacate the November 19, 2013 certificate of innocence, claiming she had not been given notice and asserting victims’ rights.
- The State and Chatman moved to dismiss Riggio’s 2-1401 petition for lack of standing; the trial court granted the motions on July 20, 2015.
- Riggio appealed, arguing standing under the Illinois Constitution’s victims’ rights provision and various statutory provisions; the appellate court reviewed only legal issues de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Riggio) | Defendant's Argument (State/Chatman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Riggio has standing to challenge a court’s grant of a certificate of innocence via a 2-1401 petition | Riggio claimed victims’ rights (Ill. Const. art. I, § 8.1) and Code provisions (e.g., 735 ILCS 5/2-408) give her standing to challenge the certificate | Section 2-702 governs certificates of innocence and expressly limits intervention rights to the Attorney General and State’s Attorney; other statutes do not authorize Riggio’s challenge | Riggio lacks standing; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether section 2-702 permits victim intervention or notice rights that confer standing | Riggio argued the certificate exposes her to liability and affects related civil litigation | Section 2-702(e) grants only the AG and State’s Attorney the right to intervene; 2-702(j) limits certificate effect to Court of Claims, precluding res judicata in other suits | 2-702 does not authorize Riggio to intervene or confer standing |
| Whether section 2-408 (intervention) or permissive intervention applies | Riggio argued she may be ‘‘bound’’ by the order or has common legal/factual questions with other suits to justify permissive intervention | State/Chatman argued 2-702’s specific scheme controls and 2-702(j) shows she will not be bound by the certificate in other proceedings | 2-408(a)(2) fails because 2-702(j) shows she ‘‘will not be bound’’; permissive intervention not warranted |
| Whether the 2014 constitutional amendment and 2015 statutory definition of "crime victim" (post-dating the certificate) apply retroactively to give Riggio standing | Riggio urged applying the amended constitution and implementing statute that allow a victim to assert rights, and that the new statute defines who is a victim | The court held the implementing statute determines who qualifies; because the prosecutor/court vacated the conviction, Riggio was no longer a victim under the implementer; retroactivity and application inappropriate | The post-2013 amendments do not confer standing to Riggio; she fails the victim definition and cannot rely on retroactivity |
Key Cases Cited
- Paul v. Gerald Adelman & Associates, Ltd., 223 Ill. 2d 85 (explains purpose and use of section 2-1401)
- Wexler v. Wirtz Corp., 211 Ill. 2d 18 (standing is an affirmative defense; burden to plead lack of standing)
- People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1 (standards for dismissal of 2-1401 pleadings)
- In re C.C., 2011 IL 111795 (statutory lists imply exclusion of omitted parties)
- People v. Artis, 232 Ill. 2d 156 (nolle prosequi signifies prosecutor’s unwillingness to prosecute and its limits)
- People v. Hughes, 2012 IL 112817 (discussion of prosecutorial nolle prosequi power)
- Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (appellant’s burden to provide a complete record; presume regularity)
- Seymour v. Collins, 2015 IL 118432 (abuse of discretion standard)
- People ex rel. Birkett v. City of Chicago, 202 Ill. 2d 36 (purpose of civil intervention statute to avoid relitigation in pending actions)
- People v. Bailey, 2014 IL 115459 (revestment doctrine restoring jurisdiction over closed matters)