People v. Douglas
2017 IL App (4th) 120617-B
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In Oct 2008 Douglas was indicted for delivery of a controlled substance (Class 1), aggravated battery (Class 2), and resisting a peace officer (Class 4); because of prior convictions he faced Class X exposure under 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3(c)(8).
- In March–April 2009 he pleaded guilty to aggravated battery under a plea cap of 10 years; the remaining charges were dismissed; he was sentenced to 10 years (to run consecutively to another sentence).
- In March 2012 Douglas filed a pro se postconviction petition asserting ineffective assistance, facial unconstitutionality of the Class X statute, and that his consecutive sentence was void; the trial court dismissed it as frivolous and patently without merit.
- The trial court sent a letter to the prison warden advising of the frivolous finding and cited 730 ILCS 5/3-6-3(d) (authorizing DOC hearings to revoke good-conduct credit for frivolous prisoner suits).
- On review the appellate court (after the Illinois Supreme Court issued a supervisory order directing reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court decisions) affirmed dismissal of the postconviction petition and Douglas’s conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Douglas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Douglas’s Class X sentence is void because he was under 21 when offense occurred/indicted | Sentence valid because defendant pleaded and was convicted/sentenced at age 21 | Sentence void or statute unconstitutional as applied to those under 21; raises ex post facto, due process, equal protection claims | Forfeited; alternatively, under People v. Smith Douglas was 21 at conviction/sentencing so Class X sentence valid |
| Whether Castleberry’s abolition of the void-sentence rule applies to allow collateral attack | Castleberry and Price limit void-sentence doctrine; sentencing errors are voidable and subject to forfeiture | Relies on pre-Castleberry precedent (Arna) to permit attack at any time on void sentence | Castleberry and Price apply; defendant forfeited void-sentence arguments by failing to raise them earlier |
| Whether as-applied constitutional challenges may be raised for first time on appeal | Forfeiture applies unless judgment is truly void for lack of jurisdiction or facially unconstitutional statute | Argues as-applied challenge can be raised anytime because sentence void | Court follows Thompson: as-applied claims forfeited; judgment is not void on those grounds |
| Whether trial court erred by notifying warden that petition was frivolous (potentially triggering DOC action to revoke good-conduct credit) | Notification permissible; DOC revocation procedures exist and DOC must initiate any hearing | Disclosure improper because first postconviction petition is not a "lawsuit" under 3-6-3(d)(2) | Court declines to decide; notes DOC must initiate revocation and this record shows no DOC action; issue not properly before appellate court |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Castleberry, 43 N.E.3d 932 (Ill. 2015) (abolished the categorical "void sentence" rule; nonconforming sentences are voidable and subject to forfeiture)
- People v. Thompson, 43 N.E.3d 984 (Ill. 2015) (as-applied constitutional claims raised first on appeal are forfeited unless judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction or facially unconstitutional)
- People v. Hodges, 912 N.E.2d 1204 (Ill. 2009) (standard for summary dismissal of pro se postconviction petitions: petition must have no arguable basis in law or fact)
- People v. Gaultney, 675 N.E.2d 102 (Ill. 1996) (postconviction petition need only present the "gist" of a constitutional claim to survive first-stage dismissal)