People v. Matthews
2016 IL 118114
| Ill. | 2016Background
- Jerrell Matthews (defendant) mailed a Section 2-1401 petition from prison on March 25, 2012, attaching a proof/certificate of service stating mailing via the prison mail system to the Cook County clerk and State’s Attorney.
- The petition was file-marked by the clerk in April; on May 24, 2012 the Cook County circuit court dismissed the petition as untimely and meritless; the State did not actively participate at the dismissal hearing.
- On appeal the appellate court held dismissal was premature because less than 30 days had passed from when the State received actual notice; it vacated the dismissal and remanded.
- The State sought review in the Illinois Supreme Court, which considered whether defendant could challenge the dismissal based on his own alleged failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 105 (service by certified or registered mail) or on lack of personal jurisdiction over the State.
- The Supreme Court framed two central questions: (1) whether a petitioner is estopped from complaining about improper service he himself caused; and (2) whether the petitioner has standing to attack the judgment as void for lack of personal jurisdiction over the State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner is estopped from challenging dismissal based on his own improper service | State: petitioner cannot attack the order when he supplied a certificate of service and invited the court to proceed | Matthews: dismissal was premature because he failed to serve State as Rule 105 requires; 30-day response period never began | Court: petitioner is estopped under invited-error/estoppel doctrine; cannot benefit from his own service error |
| Whether petitioner has standing to claim dismissal is void for lack of personal jurisdiction over the State | State: only the party entitled to service can object; personal-jurisdiction objections may be waived | Matthews: judgment is void because State was not properly served so court lacked personal jurisdiction | Court: Matthews lacks standing to raise lack-of-personal-jurisdiction on State’s behalf; only the nonserved party may object |
| Whether the record must be reviewed to determine actual compliance with Rule 105 | State: record may show service adequate or State had actual notice; appellate fact-findings relevant | Matthews: record insufficient to show State waived or had actual notice; dismissal premature | Court: no need to resolve service-compliance or waiver because estoppel and standing bars dispose of appeal |
| Remedy for premature dismissal where service defective | Matthews: vacatur and remand because 30-day period never ran | State: dismissal valid if State had actual notice or waived service | Court: affirmed circuit court dismissal; appellate reversal reversed and petition dismissed with prejudice because petitioner is estopped and lacks standing to attack jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1 (addresses waiver of defects when no responsive pleading filed)
- People v. Laugharn, 233 Ill. 2d 318 (holds court may not sua sponte dismiss a 2-1401 petition before 30-day response period expires)
- People v. Villarreal, 198 Ill. 2d 209 (invited-error/estoppel doctrine where defendant cannot complain about trial procedures he requested)
- People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368 (application of invited-error estoppel to evidentiary rulings)
- In re M.W., 232 Ill. 2d 408 (standing: objections to personal jurisdiction/improper service can be raised only by the party to whom service is owed)
- State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill, 113 Ill. 2d 294 (judgment entered without jurisdiction may be void; discussion of service and waiver)
- People v. Segoviano, 189 Ill. 2d 228 (litigant may not induce court action and later claim error based on that action)