People v. Jones
2013 IL App (1st) 113263
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Tramaine Jones pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree murder and later sought postconviction relief; his initial pro se petition was dismissed and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal and by the Illinois Supreme Court.
- The Illinois Supreme Court said Jones could pursue an improper-plea-admonition claim in a successive petition if he met the statutory cause-and-prejudice standard.
- Jones filed a successive pro se postconviction petition in 2005 without first obtaining the leave required by 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f); the petition was nevertheless docketed and counsel was later appointed.
- The case sat in the trial court for years; in August 2011 the court belatedly granted leave to file, but made no findings on cause or prejudice at that time.
- At a September 30, 2011 hearing the State moved to dismiss on procedural-bar grounds; the trial court dismissed the successive petition as procedurally barred, finding Jones failed to show the claim was newly discovered and had not shown cause to excuse the default.
- Jones appealed, arguing (inter alia) violation of due process when the court revisited procedural-bar issues after granting leave, entitlement to an evidentiary hearing, and that Martinez v. Ryan should excuse his default.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Jones) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court revisit the procedural-bar issue after granting leave to file successive petition? | The trial court may consider whether leave was properly granted and may address procedural bar because leave had not included findings on cause/prejudice. | Granting leave created a presumption court found cause/prejudice and the court could not later revisit that finding; revisiting violated due process and counsel was unprepared. | No presumption of cause/prejudice existed; record shows no such finding was made when leave was allowed; court properly considered procedural-bar arguments and Jones' due process claim fails. |
| Was Jones entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the merits? | The petition was procedurally barred; court need not reach whether he made a substantial showing of constitutional violation. | He made a substantial showing and thus was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. | Court declined to address the merits because claims were procedurally barred; no entitlement to hearing was adjudicated. |
| Did Jones satisfy the cause-and-prejudice test to excuse waiver for a successive petition? | Jones failed to show an objective external cause that prevented raising the claims initially; his subjective lack of awareness is insufficient. | Erroneous admonishments and trial/counsel actions prevented him from raising the claim in the original petition. | Held Jones did not meet the cause requirement; his failure to recognize the claim is not an objective external impediment and claims are procedurally barred. |
| Is Martinez v. Ryan applicable to excuse procedural default here? | Martinez is inapplicable because Illinois allows ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal and Jones had the option of direct appeal with appointed counsel. | Martinez’s reasoning should excuse default because initial postconviction counsel failed to raise the claim. | Martinez does not apply; factual and procedural differences (availability of direct appeal) preclude its use to excuse Jones’ default. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jones, 213 Ill. 2d 498 (Ill. 2004) (supreme court explained successive-petition cause-and-prejudice requirement)
- People v. Jones, 341 Ill. App. 3d 103 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) (appellate decision on initial postconviction dismissal)
- People v. Tenner, 206 Ill. 2d 381 (Ill. 2002) (cause-and-prejudice standard explained)
- People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444 (Ill. 2002) (successive petitions and fundamental fairness)
- People v. Evans, 2013 IL 113471 (Ill. 2013) (clarification that certain admonishments and awareness cannot establish objective cause)
- People v. Bounds, 182 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 1998) (due-process limits when court converts status call into merits hearing without notice)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2012) (federal rule allowing excuse of procedural default where initial-review collateral counsel was ineffective; distinguished here)