People v. Johnson
2017 IL 120310
| Ill. | 2017Background
- Allen R. Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder in 2005 and received a 50-year sentence; the appellate court affirmed in a Rule 23 order on May 7, 2007.
- Johnson did not file a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court or a certiorari petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- He filed a pro se postconviction petition on August 25, 2008 (after the statutory deadline he later disputed), attaching an affidavit from fellow inmate/"freelance paralegal" Christopher Askew claiming library delays and prison lockdowns caused the lateness.
- After an evidentiary hearing, Judge Vecchio excused the late filing based on Johnson’s reliance on Askew and Johnson’s initial unfamiliarity with the deadline; counsel adopted the petition and filed a Rule 651(c) certificate.
- The case was reassigned; Judge Wilt reconsidered and dismissed the petition as untimely and the delay culpably negligent (finding the deadline ran from the expiration of the 35-day period to file a petition for leave to appeal), and the appellate court affirmed.
- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed: it held section 122-1(c) requires a filing deadline when a petition for leave to appeal to this court is not filed (six months from the date for filing such petition), and Johnson’s delay was due to culpable negligence; Judge Wilt properly revisited Judge Vecchio’s interlocutory order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Johnson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §122-1(c) provides a filing deadline when no petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court is filed | The statute must be construed to supply a deadline; reading the statute to create a gap would lead to absurd results and contradict legislative intent | The statute's text contains an "apparent gap" (it references certiorari deadlines but not petitions for leave to appeal), so no deadline applies when no petition for leave to appeal is filed | Court read §122-1(c) to require a deadline; six months runs from the date for filing a petition for leave to appeal (here: postconviction petition due Dec. 11, 2007) |
| Whether Johnson’s postconviction petition was timely or excused from dismissal by lack of culpable negligence | The petition was untimely and Johnson failed to allege facts showing the delay was not due to culpable negligence | Reliance on prison "paralegal" Askew, library access problems, and lockdowns excuse the delay and negate culpable negligence | Court held Johnson’s delay was culpably negligent: reliance on an unlicensed inmate and ignorance of law insufficient; claimed 2008 events occurred after the December 2007 deadline and thus do not excuse lateness |
| Whether Judge Wilt could reconsider Judge Vecchio’s prior interlocutory timeliness ruling | The State preserved timeliness and the trial court could revisit interlocutory rulings; Wilt could properly reconsider | Johnson argued Vecchio, as the live factfinder, was in the superior position to weigh credibility and that Wilt should not have overruled him | Court held Wilt properly exercised authority to revisit and vacate an interlocutory order before final judgment; no error in reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tate, 2012 IL 112214 (explains postconviction procedure and purpose)
- People v. Lander, 215 Ill. 2d 577 (reliance on jailhouse lawyering and nonexpert assistance insufficient to negate culpable negligence)
- People v. Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d 177 (standard of review for postconviction dismissal at second stage)
- People v. Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d 89 (defines culpable negligence standard; ignorance of law not excusing delay)
- People v. Jackson, 2011 IL 110615 (rule of lenity and statutory interpretation principles)
- People v. Mink, 141 Ill. 2d 163 (trial court authority to reconsider rulings)
- Catlett v. Novak, 116 Ill. 2d 63 (interlocutory orders subject to revision before final judgment)
- People v. Robinson, 2015 IL App (4th) 130815 (appellate treatment of similar statutory-interpretation question; court ultimately dismissed for culpable negligence)