People v. Stephens, 2012 IL App (1st) 110296

Background

Nathaniel Stephens, 19, was convicted after a bench trial of aggravated battery to a child and first degree murder for separate incidents in 2001.
On remand for sentencing after direct appeal, the court imposed consecutive 25-year terms without a new sentencing hearing in defendant’s presence.
On September 20, 2010, Stephens filed a pro se postconviction petition challenging fitness procedures, trial counsel’s effectiveness, and appellate counsel’s effectiveness.
The trial court summarily dismissed the petition at the first stage as conclusory, without a second-stage appointment or amendments.
On appeal, Stephens challenges the dismissal, the fitness issue, and the validity of consecutive sentences imposed on remand, seeking resentencing.
The appellate court ultimately affirmed the dismissal and remanded for resentencing to comply with its mandate.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the first-stage dismissal of the postconviction petition was proper.	Stephens claims the petition states meritorious claims and should proceed.	People argue the petition lacked an arguable basis and was properly dismissed.	Yes; the court affirmed dismissal because the petition did not present an arguable basis.
Whether the trial court should have ordered a fitness hearing sua sponte.	Stephens contends a bona fide doubt of fitness existed based on experts’ testimony.	People maintain no bona fide doubt existed to require a fitness hearing.	No; there was no arguable basis to require a fitness hearing sua sponte.
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a fitness hearing.	Counsel’s failure to seek a fitness hearing prejudiced Stephens.	Counsel did not fall below objective standards given the lack of fitness concerns.	No; ineffective-assistance claim failed under Strickland and related standards.
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising fitness issues on direct appeal.	Appellate counsel should have raised fitness-related issues.	No prejudice shown since fitness issues lacked merit.	No; appellate counsel was not ineffective.
Whether the remand sentencing violated the mandate by not holding a new sentencing hearing.	Consequences of direct-appeal remand required a new sentencing hearing per mandate.	The record shows consecutive sentences were imposed, potentially voiding prior terms.	Yes; the sentences were vacated and remanded for a new sentencing hearing to comply with mandate and 5-5-3(d).

Key Cases Cited

People v. Pendleton, 723 Ill.2d 218 (2006) (governs postconviction stages and standard of review for first-stage dismissal)
People v. Whitfield, 217 Ill.2d 177 (2005) (defines substantial deprivation and postconviction framework)
People v. Perkins, 229 Ill.2d 34 (2007) (Rule 651(c) amendments and appointment of counsel)
People v. Brown, 236 Ill.2d 175 (2010) (standard for first-stage review and liberally construed petitions)
People v. Gaultney, 174 Ill.2d 410 (1996) (limits on trial court’s consideration during first-stage review)
People v. Rockamann, 79 Ill. App. 3d 575 (1979) (distinction between fitness to stand trial and voluntariness of confession)
People v. Easley, 192 Ill.2d 307 (2000) (fitness to stand trial vs. rights waiver concepts)
People v. Murphy, 72 Ill.2d 421 (1978) (prior competency standards for fitness to stand trial)
In re James, 111 Ill.2d 283 (1986) (effective counsel rights in discretionary appeals)
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (contextual framework for fitness and waiver considerations)