2011 IL App (4th) 100219
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- defendant Hampton was convicted of residential burglary after a February 2010 jury trial.
- An Urbana police evidence letter identified $651 of Hampton’s property as belonging to him and stated it could be picked up after appeals.
- On March 11, 2010, Hampton was sentenced to 29 years’ imprisonment with 128 days credit and 2 years MSR, plus restitution, an VCAP fee, and a $200 genetic-marker-grouping-analysis fee.
- A written order of forfeiture directed the seized property to be used for restitution; the cash items were seized from Hampton at arrest and valued at $651.
- On March 12–26, 2010, Hampton pursued posttrial relief: motion to reconsider, notice of appeal, and OSAD appointment; he also filed a pro se motion to recoupe personal funds.
- The circuit court and OSAD treated Hampton as appealing; the pro se motion sought return of funds and production of various documents, arguing Brady/FoIA grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OSAD’s summary remand was proper | Hampton argues for remand to address his pro se motion. | State contends Rule 606(b) does not authorize successive postjudgment motions. | Denied; Rule 606(b) allows only one postjudgment motion. |
| Whether a pro se postjudgment motion is proper when counsel represents the defendant | N/A | N/A | Not properly before the trial court; defendant was represented, so pro se motion was improper. |
| Whether the pro se motion to recoupe personal funds could be decided while an appeal was pending | N/A | N/A | No; money must be held pending resolution of appeal regardless of restitution linkage. |
| Appropriate disposition of seized funds pending appeal | N/A | N/A | Funds remain held pending appeal; no final relief available while review is ongoing. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Miraglia, 323 Ill.App.3d 199 (2001) (only one postjudgment motion permitted; finality required)
- People v. Neal, 286 Ill.App.3d 353 (1996) (pro se motion not properly before court when represented)
- Handy v. People, 278 Ill.App.3d 829 (1996) (pro se sentencing motion improper where counsel already filed motion)
- People v. Serio, 357 Ill.App.3d 806 (2005) (pro se motions in certain contexts not supported by counsel)
- Sears v. Sears, 85 Ill.2d 253 (1981) (finality requirement for postjudgment relief)