People v. Shotts
2015 IL App (4th) 130695
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Terry E. Shotts was convicted by jury in Aug. 1991 of multiple sexual offenses involving minors and was sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 64 years.
- The convictions rested primarily on testimony from four minors describing coerced sexual contact and on Shotts’s own admissions that he had sexual relations with minors (which he characterized as consensual or paid).
- Shotts filed numerous postconviction and collateral challenges over many years (this consolidated appeal is one of at least eleven), raising claims of ineffective assistance, trial-judge misconduct, sentencing error, and judicial impartiality. Most prior claims were rejected on the merits or barred by res judicata.
- In March 2011 Shotts sought leave to file a successive postconviction petition claiming ineffective assistance and questioning the trial judge’s integrity; the trial court denied leave as the claims were raised or could have been raised earlier (procedural bar).
- OSAD moved to withdraw on appeal, concluding no nonfrivolous issues exist; the appellate court granted leave to consider withdrawal, reviewed the record, granted the motion, and affirmed the trial court’s denial of leave.
- The court admonished Shotts for repeated frivolous filings, ordered him to show cause why sanctions under Supreme Court Rule 375(b) should not issue, directed the clerk to refuse future filings by him pending response, and recommended pursuit of civil sanctions/forfeiture of credits under statutory provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shotts showed cause & prejudice or actual innocence to permit a successive postconviction petition under 725 ILCS 5/122‑1(f) | The State: Shotts’s March 2011 motion fails to plead actual innocence or newly discovered evidence; claims were raised or could have been raised earlier and are procedurally barred. | Shotts: Asserts ineffective assistance, trial‑judge impartiality, and other challenges warrant leave to file a successive petition. | Denied — court held Shotts did not plead actual innocence, offered no newly discovered evidence, and claims were barred by res judicata/forfeiture. Leave denied. |
| Whether a conflict of interest in OSAD required transfer of Shotts’s appeal to another district | State/OSAD: No factual showing of a conflict; mere speculation and a single tense phone call insufficient. | Shotts: Argued potential conflicts because prior appellate counsel had been employed by OSAD and he did not waive conflicts as to all current OSAD attorneys. | Denied — court applied Robinson/Banks/Hardin factors and found no showing of a disqualifying conflict; no transfer required. |
| Whether OSAD may withdraw under Illinois Supreme Court Rule and appellate standards | OSAD: No meritorious issues exist to raise on appeal; withdrawal appropriate after brief review. | Shotts: Opposed, arguing representation problems and meritorious claims. | Granted — appellate court allowed OSAD to withdraw and found no nonfrivolous appellate issue. |
| Whether court should restrict future filings and impose sanctions for abusive litigation | The State/OSAD: The trial and appellate dockets are burdened by repeated frivolous filings; sanctions and filing restrictions appropriate. | Shotts: Did not present persuasive argument against sanctions. | Court ordered show‑cause re: sanctions, directed clerk to refuse new filings until response, and recommended pursuing statutory remedies (including credit revocation). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Edwards, 969 N.E.2d 829 (Ill. 2012) (explaining standards for successive postconviction petitions: cause-and-prejudice and actual-innocence exceptions)
- People v. Tidwell, 923 N.E.2d 728 (Ill. 2010) (successive petition not "filed" until leave is granted)
- People v. Smith, 21 N.E.3d 1172 (Ill. 2014) (leave to file successive petition denied when petition and attachments fail as a matter of law)
- People v. Robinson, 402 N.E.2d 157 (Ill. 1979) (public defender office conflict analysis — no automatic imputation to entire office)
- People v. Banks, 520 N.E.2d 617 (Ill. 1988) (case-by-case inquiry into appearance of impropriety from public defender conflicts)
- People v. Hardin, 840 N.E.2d 1205 (Ill. 2005) (factors to consider in public-defender conflict claims: trial partnership, supervisory relationships, office structure)