People v. Crenshaw
2017 IL App (4th) 150170
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Michael E. Crenshaw was convicted in 2009 of criminal sexual assault and sentenced to eight years; his direct appeal and an initial postconviction petition were previously denied.
- Crenshaw filed multiple pro se motions and successive postconviction petitions alleging ineffective assistance (trial and postconviction counsel), judicial bias, evidentiary errors (rape kit, phone recording), and that his confession was coerced.
- The trial court denied leave to file a successive postconviction petition and later denied a section 2-1401 petition to vacate the judgment as void; Crenshaw appealed those denials and sought substitution of judges.
- The Office of the State Appellate Defender (OSAD) moved to withdraw on appeal under Finley, explaining it found no meritorious issues after review.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the 2-1401 petition could properly raise Crenshaw’s claims and whether Crenshaw was entitled to a substitution of judge as a matter of right under section 2-1001(a)(2)(ii).
- The court affirmed: (1) section 2-1401 is improper to relitigate the claims raised (and the petition did not allege lack of jurisdiction to render the judgment void), and (2) a substitution of judge was not allowed for a 2-1401 proceeding as a matter of right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judgment is void under section 2-1401 | OSAD/State: Judgment not void; petition alleges non-jurisdictional errors unsuitable for 2-1401 | Crenshaw: Judgment void due to miscarriage of justice, ineffective counsel, bias, coerced confession, evidentiary errors | Denied — petition not invoking lack of jurisdiction; 2-1401 improper vehicle for these claims |
| Whether 2-1401 can be used to raise ineffective-assistance and evidentiary claims | OSAD: Such claims are meritless in 2-1401 and belong on direct appeal or postconviction | Crenshaw: Raised ineffective-assistance, evidentiary issues, and newly discovered evidence in 2-1401 | Denied — 2-1401 not to substitute for direct appeal/postconviction; ineffective-assistance not appropriate there |
| Whether substitution of judge as a matter of right applies to 2-1401 proceedings | State: 2-1401 is not a new case for section 2-1001(a)(2) purposes; allowing substitution would permit judge-shopping | Crenshaw: 2-1401 is a collateral/new proceeding, so substitution of judge should be allowed before substantive ruling | Denied — adopting Niemerg: 2-1401 not a new case for substitution-of-judge as a matter of right |
| Whether OSAD adequately justified withdrawal on appeal under Finley/Kuehner | OSAD: Thorough review found no meritorious issues; provided explanation referencing precedents | Crenshaw: (no successful challenge to OSAD’s withdrawal) | Granted — OSAD’s explanation adequate; appellate court affirms trial court judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (no constitutional right to counsel in collateral attacks; appointed counsel may withdraw with justification)
- People v. Kuehner, 2015 IL 117695 (state-appointed counsel must explain why claim is meritless when seeking to withdraw)
- 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)
- LVNV Funding, LLC v. Trice, 2015 IL 116129 (void-judgment standard; only fundamental jurisdictional defects render judgment void)
- People v. Pinkonsly, 207 Ill. 2d 555 (2003) (section 2-1401 cannot be used to raise ineffective-assistance claims or substitute for direct appeal)
- Niemerg v. Bonelli, 344 Ill. App. 3d 459 (2003) (section 2-1401 is not a new case for purposes of substitution of judge under section 2-1001)