People v. Johnson
2017 WL 1193707
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Granville S. Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder in 2009 and sentenced to consecutive long prison terms; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- In April 2014 Johnson, through privately retained counsel, filed a postconviction petition alleging trial counsel ineffective for not moving to reconsider a continuance granted to the State based on a late DNA-related lab report.
- The trial court summarily dismissed the petition as forfeited/res judicata and meritless; retained postconviction counsel appealed and later moved to withdraw; Johnson filed a timely pro se motion to reconsider alleging retained postconviction counsel was “ineffective” (i.e., failed to add additional claims).
- The trial court initially would not consider the pro se motion because an appeal was pending; after remand it denied the motion to reconsider, finding the additional claims forfeited because they were not in the original petition and Johnson had not sought leave to file a successive petition.
- Johnson appealed, arguing the court should relax forfeiture because retained counsel’s unreasonable assistance at the first stage caused the omission and at least one omitted claim (about officer testimony) stated the gist of a constitutional claim.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding no statutory right to reasonable assistance at the first stage for prisoners represented by retained counsel and therefore the trial court properly refused to consider the new claims in the motion to reconsider.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant represented by privately retained counsel is entitled to “reasonable assistance” at the first (summary-dismissal) stage of postconviction proceedings | The State: no statutory right exists; forfeiture and single-petition scheme control | Johnson: Cotto and prior authority mean retained counsel must provide reasonable assistance at first stage; forfeiture should be relaxed when counsel omits meritorious claims | Held: No. The Act gives no right to counsel at first-stage; reasonable-assistance attaches only after petition advances to second-stage; permitting otherwise would create disparate treatment |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by refusing to consider new claims raised in Johnson’s pro se motion to reconsider (claims omitted by retained postconviction counsel) | State: New claims are forfeited under section 122-3; must be raised in original petition or by leave for successive petition | Johnson: Forfeiture should be relaxed because retained counsel’s unreasonable performance caused the omission and at least one omitted claim has merit | Held: The court properly treated the additional claims as forfeited; Johnson must seek relief via a successive petition (and cannot use motion to reconsider to bypass section 122-3) |
| Whether at least one omitted claim (challenging officer testimony) stated the gist of a constitutional claim warranting second-stage review | State: Underlying claim is meritless | Johnson: The officer-testimony claim states the gist of a meritorious claim and would survive first-stage screening | Held: Court declined to reach merits because the claim was forfeited; overall disposition affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance of counsel standard)
- People v. Kegel, 392 Ill. App. 3d 538 (Ill. App. 2009) (no right to reasonable assistance at first-stage when counsel is privately retained)
- People v. Ligon, 239 Ill. 2d 94 (Ill. 2010) (no right to appointed counsel at summary-dismissal stage)
- People v. Mitchell, 189 Ill. 2d 312 (Ill. 2000) (review of retained counsel’s performance in capital context)
- People v. Vilces, 321 Ill. App. 3d 937 (Ill. App. 2001) (new issues raised first in motion to reconsider are forfeited)