People v. Dalton
71 N.E.3d 820
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In February 2009 Geoffrey Dalton, a high-school teacher, was charged with multiple counts alleging sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old student; in May 2009 he pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sexual assault.
- Plea agreement capped prison exposure at 10 years; during plea and sentencing the parties and court discussed mandatory supervised release (MSR), with the court ultimately sentencing Dalton to 10 years followed by a three-year MSR.
- In June 2010 Dalton filed a pro se postconviction petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act alleging his plea promise concerning MSR was violated because he actually faced an indeterminate MSR (three years to natural life). Counsel was appointed and filed an amended petition; the trial court dismissed it and this court affirmed.
- In October 2014 Dalton moved for leave to file a successive postconviction petition, arguing postconviction counsel failed to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 651(c) (consultation/record review/amendments). The trial court denied leave.
- Dalton appealed the denial of leave to file a successive petition; the Fourth District affirmed, holding a Rule 651(c) claim does not allege a constitutional violation cognizable under the Act and therefore cannot support leave to file a successive postconviction petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument (Dalton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dalton should get leave to file a successive postconviction petition under 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) based on counsel's alleged failure to comply with Rule 651(c) | State: denial appropriate because Rule 651(c) claim is not a constitutional claim cognizable in a postconviction petition | Dalton: postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance by failing to comply with Rule 651(c), which establishes cause and prejudice for a successive petition | Court held Dalton’s Rule 651(c) claim is statutory, not constitutional, and arises from postconviction proceedings, so it does not meet the Act’s threshold for a postconviction claim; denial of leave affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Edwards, 197 Ill. 2d 239 (Illinois 2001) (describing the Act as remedy for substantial constitutional violations)
- People v. Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d 89 (Illinois 2002) (describing the three-stage postconviction process)
- People v. Tate, 2012 IL 112214 (Illinois 2012) (standard for second-stage dismissal and substantial showing requirement)
- People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37 (Illinois 2007) (no constitutional right to counsel in postconviction proceedings)
- People v. Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d 34 (Illinois 2007) (Rule 651(c) issues can be raised on appeal)
- People v. Wrice, 2012 IL 111860 (Illinois 2012) (denial of leave to file a successive postconviction petition reviewed de novo)