2022 IL App (5th) 200011-U
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- John Redmond pleaded guilty (May 23, 2014) to two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault in exchange for an agreed sentencing cap; court sentenced him to two consecutive 13‑year terms plus MSR.
- At the plea hearing the prosecutor and court advised MSR was three years to life; initial written judgments listed 3 years MSR, and a second amended judgment (Nov. 29, 2016) later recited a three‑years‑to‑life MSR term.
- Redmond did not file a direct appeal; the conviction became final when the court denied his motion to reconsider on Jan. 13, 2015.
- Redmond filed a pro se motion for leave to file a late postconviction petition on Aug. 15, 2018 (over seven months after the 3‑year deadline), later amended by appointed counsel.
- The State moved to dismiss as untimely; the circuit court dismissed, finding the petition untimely and that Redmond failed to show the delay was not due to culpable negligence. Redmond appealed; appellate counsel (OSAD) moved to withdraw under Finley.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Redmond) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of postconviction petition | Petition was untimely — conviction final Jan 13, 2015; petition due Jan 13, 2018; filed Aug 15, 2018 | Petition timely because amended judgment (Nov 29, 2016) restarted the limitations period | Court: untimely — conviction was final Jan 13, 2015; filing was >7 months late |
| Excuse for late filing / culpable negligence | Redmond failed to prove delay was not due to his culpable negligence | Lack of legal knowledge and not knowing how to proceed excused delay | Held for State: ignorance of law does not excuse delay; defendant did not meet burden |
| Effect of Nov. 29, 2016 amended judgment | The second amended judgment merely conformed the written order to the oral sentence and did not restart the limitations period | The Nov. 29, 2016 judgment was a new judgment that restarted the 3‑year filing period | Held for State: amended judgment was not a new sentence; trial court lacked authority to alter sentence after 30 days; it merely corrected the written judgment |
| Compliance with Supreme Court Rule 651(c) by postconviction counsel | Counsel filed an amended petition and a Rule 651(c) certificate; presumptively reasonable assistance given | Counsel failed to include some pro se claims and therefore did not comply with Rule 651(c) | Held for State: counsel presumptively complied; exclusions were reasonable because some claims were waived or conclusory |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (procedural standard allowing counsel to move to withdraw when no meritorious claims exist)
- People v. Van Hee, 305 Ill. App. 3d 333 (1999) (defendant bears burden to show delay in filing was not due to culpable negligence)
- People v. Hampton, 349 Ill. App. 3d 824 (2004) (ignorance of the law does not establish lack of culpable negligence)
- People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291 (2003) (trial court loses authority to alter sentence after 30 days; post‑judgment amendments may merely correct written judgment)
- People v. Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d 34 (2007) (scope of reasonable assistance under the Post‑Conviction Hearing Act and Rule 651(c))