2021 IL App (1st) 200658
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background:
- In May 2017, Dorian Pulliam entered a negotiated guilty plea to predatory criminal sexual assault of a child in exchange for a 32-year sentence and dismissal of other charges.
- Pulliam was arrested on February 1, 2014 after officers curbed a vehicle he occupied and discovered an investigative alert stemming from an incident on or about May 30, 2013.
- In September–October 2019 Pulliam filed pro se motions seeking to withdraw his plea and challenge the constitutionality of his arrest (arguing the arrest was based on an investigative alert rather than a warrant); the circuit court denied relief for lack of jurisdiction and as untimely/waived.
- In October 2019 Pulliam filed a section 2-1401 petition reiterating that his arrest was illegal and that trial counsel was ineffective for not filing motions to quash/suppress; the court denied the petition in March 2020, concluding the claim was waived by the guilty plea and relied on an appellate split (Bass vs. Braswell).
- Appellate counsel (Office of the State Appellate Defender) moved to withdraw under Pennsylvania v. Finley after concluding an appeal would be without arguable merit; Pulliam opposed. The appellate court granted withdrawal and affirmed the denial of relief.
- Justice Pucinski filed a special concurrence urging review of the constitutionality of investigative alerts and expressing concern about CPD practice of relying on alerts rather than warrants.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Pulliam) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / procedural bar to 2-1401 relief | Petition untimely and claim waived by guilty plea | Petition timely because judgment void and basis for challenge was unavailable at plea | Denied: petition untimely/waived; court affirmed denial |
| Constitutionality of arrest based on investigative alert | Arrest constitutionality not persuasive given controlling precedent and split among appellate panels | Arrest was unconstitutional because it rested on an investigative alert, not a warrant | Not reached on merits; claim lacked arguable merit due to waiver and timeliness; affirmed |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to file motions to quash/suppress | Any challenge waived by guilty plea; ineffective-assistance claim lacks merit given plea | Counsel refused to file motions and thereby deprived Pulliam of ability to challenge arrest | Denied as waived by plea; no arguable merit on appeal |
| Appellate counsel withdrawal under Finley | Leave to withdraw appropriate when appeal lacks arguable merit | Opposed withdrawal; argued counsel failed to adequately consider issues | Granted: appellate counsel permitted to withdraw under Finley; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (standard permitting appointed counsel to withdraw when appeal lacks arguable merit)
- People v. Bass, 2021 IL 125434 (Illinois Supreme Court) (discussed issue of investigative alerts; court did not definitively resolve constitutionality of alerts)