People v. Crenshaw
79 N.E.3d 289
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Michael E. Crenshaw was convicted of criminal sexual assault in 2009 and sentenced to 8 years; his direct appeal and an initial postconviction petition were previously resolved against him.
- Crenshaw later filed a successive postconviction petition and multiple motions (including motions to substitute judges), which were denied; those denials were unsuccessfully appealed.
- In 2014 Crenshaw filed a section 2-1401 petition (motion to vacate/void judgment) asserting the judgment was void based on claims including ineffective assistance of trial/appellate counsel, judicial bias, coerced confession, evidentiary errors (rape kit, phone recording), and insufficient proof.
- The trial court denied the section 2-1401 petition and denied his substitution-of-judge motion; Crenshaw appealed those rulings.
- The Office of the State Appellate Defender (OSAD) moved to withdraw on appeal under Finley, explaining it found no meritorious issues; the appellate court granted withdrawal and affirmed the denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper use of section 2-1401 to void criminal judgment | Section 2-1401 can remedy fundamental defects | Crenshaw argued the judgment was void due to errors, ineffective assistance, and evidentiary problems | Section 2-1401 is not the proper vehicle for the alleged errors; no jurisdictional defect shown, so petition fails |
| Timeliness and scope of 2-1401 relief | N/A (State argued merits) | Crenshaw claimed relief despite being outside two-year statutory period and raising issues known at trial | Petition untimely and raises issues cognizable on direct appeal/postconviction, not via 2-1401 |
| Ineffective assistance claims raised in 2-1401 | N/A | Crenshaw alleged trial/postconviction/appellate counsel ineffective | Ineffective-assistance claims are improper in 2-1401 (not factual basis to void judgment) |
| Substitution of judge as a matter of right (735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(2)(ii)) | Crenshaw: section 2-1401 is a new collateral proceeding, so substitution as of right available | State/OSAD: section 2-1401 is not a new case for section 2-1001 purposes; allowing substitution enables judge-shopping | Court adopts Niemerg: substitution as of right denied because judge had previously ruled in the case; no entitlement to substitute |
Key Cases Cited
- Finley v. Pennsylvania, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (no constitutional right to counsel for collateral attacks; appointed counsel may withdraw if claims are meritless)
- Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325 (2002) (judgment is void only for lack of personal or subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Pinkonsly v. People, 207 Ill. 2d 555 (2003) (section 2-1401 is not for general review of trial errors or ineffective-assistance claims)
- Niemerg v. Bonelli, 344 Ill. App. 3d 459 (2003) (section 2-1401 is not a new case for purposes of substitution-of-judge rule; denying substitution prevents judge-shopping)
- Vincent v. People, 226 Ill. 2d 1 (2007) (standard of review for section 2-1401 denials and discussion of void-judgment doctrine)