People v. Perez
2014 IL 115927
Ill.2014Background
- Ivan Perez, convicted of first-degree murder, filed a pro se postconviction petition on November 9, 2010.
- The circuit judge signed and dated an order dismissing the petition as frivolous on February 7, 2011 (the 90th day after filing and docketing).
- The circuit clerk did not file-stamp the dismissal order until February 8, 2011 (the 91st day).
- The appellate court reversed, holding the dismissal was untimely because an order is "entered" only when placed of record (file-stamped by the clerk).
- The State sought review; the Supreme Court of Illinois granted leave to resolve whether signing alone constitutes "entry" under 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a).
- The Supreme Court held the order was not timely: under Rule 272 and Illinois precedent, a written judgment is "entered" when placed of record (filed), not merely when signed by the judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When is a trial court’s dismissal "entered" under 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a) for the 90-day rule? | (State) Entry occurs when the judge signs and dates the written order. | (Perez) Entry occurs when the clerk files/docket-stamps the order (placing it of record). | The court held entry occurs when the written judgment is entered of record (filed by the clerk); signing alone is insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Granite City Lodge No. 272, Loyal Order of the Moose v. City of Granite City, 141 Ill.2d 122 (Ill. 1990) (Rule 272 makes the record-entry date controlling for judgment entry)
- Freeport Motor Casualty Co. v. Tharp, 406 Ill. 295 (Ill. 1950) (distinguishes rendition from entry; judgments not valid if made secretly in chambers)
- People ex rel. Schwartz v. Fagerholm, 17 Ill.2d 131 (Ill. 1959) (public expression doctrine: judgment effective when announced in open court or filed after reduction to writing)
- Cirro Wrecking Co. v. Roppolo, 153 Ill.2d 6 (Ill. 1992) (a properly rendered judgment is valid despite clerical entry delay, but Rule 272 generally makes filing date controlling)
- Ahn Brothers, Inc. v. Buttitta, 143 Ill. App.3d 688 (Ill. App. 1986) (discusses Rule 272’s purpose to remove doubt about the date a judgment is entered)
- Commonwealth Loan Co. v. Baker, 67 Ill. App.2d 359 (Ill. App. 1966) (judgment made in chambers but not pronounced was not entered; entry must be public)