People v. Leon
2022 IL App (1st) 191367-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2022Background
- On September 16, 2009 Leon pleaded guilty to unlawful use of a weapon and received a negotiated 7-year sentence to run consecutively to an existing 20-year sentence; the court and commitment order referenced 841 days of presentence custody credit.
- Leon did not move to withdraw his plea or file a direct appeal; he mailed a pro se petition (styled as relief from void judgment) that was filed in the circuit court on March 5, 2013 — six months after the three-year statutory deadline for postconviction petitions.
- The circuit court initially dismissed the pro se filing; this court reversed and remanded because the record was inconclusive about whether the 841 days were part of the plea bargain.
- Postconviction counsel was appointed, filed a Rule 651(c) certificate, obtained and filed Leon’s supplemental affidavit claiming he relied on court documents and that prison lockdowns delayed his filing until March 2013.
- The State moved to dismiss the postconviction petition as untimely; the circuit court granted the motion in 2019, finding Leon failed to allege specific facts to overcome culpable negligence; Leon appealed, also arguing he received unreasonable assistance from postconviction counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Leon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Leon’s postconviction petition was untimely and, if so, whether he showed the delay was not due to culpable negligence | The petition was filed six months after the three-year deadline and Leon offered only conclusory allegations (lockdowns, reliance on documents) insufficient to rebut culpable negligence | Leon relied on plea transcript and commitment order, only discovered DOC’s credit allocation later, and prison lockdowns prevented earlier filing | Dismissal affirmed: Leon failed to plead specific facts showing lack of culpable negligence and the court properly dismissed at the second stage |
| Whether Leon received reasonable assistance of postconviction counsel (and so is entitled to remand) | Counsel sought continuances, obtained Leon’s affidavit, filed a Rule 651(c) certificate, and argued Leon’s factual assertions; there is no record showing counsel flatly contradicted her certificate or failed to act reasonably | Counsel did not file a written response to the State’s motion and failed to rebut the State’s untimeliness arguments, amounting to unreasonable assistance | Denied: counsel’s efforts (communications, continuances, affidavit, certificate, argument at hearing) show reasonable assistance and Leon failed to prove prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d 89 (court adopts elevated culpable-negligence standard requiring more than ordinary negligence)
- People v. Wheeler, 392 Ill. App. 3d 303 (procedural limits on granting relief at second stage where culpable-negligence credibility assessments belong at an evidentiary hearing)
- People v. Walker, 331 Ill. App. 3d 335 (conclusory lockdown allegations insufficient to excuse untimely filing)
- People v. Rissley, 206 Ill. 2d 403 (reliance on counsel and active steps to pursue relief can negate culpable negligence)
- People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192 (postconviction counsel need not advance frivolous or patently nonmeritorious claims)
- People v. Turner, 187 Ill. 2d 406 (Rule 651(c) amendments can be necessary to avoid dismissal on specific bases)