People v. Dunlap
963 N.E.2d 394
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Dunlap, pro se, filed a July 2010 postconviction petition alleging prosecutorial vouching and appellate counsel ineffectiveness.
- Trial court dismissed the petition as frivolous and patently without merit.
- Police arrested Dunlap February 2006 as he left a known drug house; search yielded four bags of cocaine, $1,922 in cash, and a cellphone.
- Phone rang ~50 times after arrest; 19 voicemail messages were left.
- Charges included unlawful possession of a controlled substance and possession with intent to deliver; May 2007 trial followed.
- Trial included opening statements and closing arguments detailing inferences from the evidence, including the money and cell phone usage; defense did not present evidence.
- Dunlap was convicted in July 2007 and sentenced to 13 years in prison; OSAD represented him on direct appeal, which was affirmed in 2009.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the first-stage dismissal of the postconviction petition was proper | Dunlap asserts a substantial constitutional deprivation. | Dunlap contends the petition alleged viable claims. | Yes; the petition was properly dismissed at first stage. |
| Whether the opening remarks by the prosecutor were improper | Dunlap claims remarks about not selling out tainted the trial. | Dunlap argues improper reliance on facts not in evidence. | No reversible error; any prejudice was cured. |
| Whether the closing remarks by the prosecutor were improper | Dunlap claims statements about drugs and witnesses not in evidence were prejudicial. | Dunlap contends closing arguments invited speculation unsupported by record. | No reversible error; arguments were vigorous but proper in context. |
| Whether OSAD’s representation on direct appeal was ineffective | Dunlap asserts OSAD failed to raise prosecutorial remark issues. | OSAD adequately represented him on direct appeal. | No ineffective-assistance claim; admission of remarks deemed meritless. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Andrews, 403 Ill.App.3d 654 (2010) (first-stage postconviction review standards; de novo review; frivolous or patently meritless petitions)
- People v. Brown, 236 Ill.2d 175 (2010) (de novo review of first-stage postconviction dismissal)
- People v. Sorrels, 389 Ill.App.3d 547 (2009) (closing-argument inference permitted; not reversible error when within limits)
- People v. Montgomery, 373 Ill.App.3d 1104 (2007) (closing-argument evaluation; not speech police; high-stakes trials require advocacy)
- People v. Perry, 224 Ill.2d 312 (2007) (limits on closing argument; not reversible error absent prejudice)