People v. Steward
406 Ill. App. 3d 82
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Steward was convicted in 1996 of attempted aggravated criminal sexual assault and aggravated battery, sentenced to 25 years plus 5 years, with concurrent terms.
- In 2006 the State filed a petition under the SVPCA seeking civil commitment; Steward was detained pending disposition.
- After depositions and trial testimony, Patrice provided differing accounts between trial and posttrial deposition (recantation of trial testimony).
- Steward filed a post-conviction petition on February 9, 2009 asserting actual innocence and newly discovered evidence from Patrice and Fancy.
- The trial court summarily dismissed as frivolous and patently without merit, ruling Steward lacked standing because SVPCA detention is not imprisonment under the Act; this court affirms the dismissal but vacates the $105 fees.
- The appellate decision affirms the standing ruling and denies relief on the merits, but vacates the sanctions for fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act | Steward argues standing exists despite SVPCA confinement. | State argues SVPCA confinement is civil and not imprisonment; standing barred. | Affirmed standing dismissal at first stage. |
| SVPCA confinement and the 'imprisoned in the penitentiary' requirement | Steward contends SVPCA detention satisfies imprisonment element. | SVPCA is civil; does not satisfy imprisonment under the Act. | Confinement under SVPCA does not satisfy the imprisonment requirement. |
| Merits of the postconviction petition (frivolous/patently meritless) | Petition supported by newly discovered testimony could show innocence. | Petition fails to present a meritorious claim; recantations do not prove innocence. | Petition dismissed as meritless; no arguable basis. |
| tolling of MSR under 15(e) SVPCA and retroactivity | MSR tolling could render petition timely. | Amendment not retroactive; tolling does not fit Act’s scope. | MSR tolling does not establish standing or timing; petition barred. |
| Sanctions under 22-105 Code of Civil Procedure | Sanctions imposed for frivolous filing; should be upheld. | Steward was not confined in IDOC facility; sanctions improper. | Sanctions vacated; not applicable to Steward’s MSR status. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pendleton, 223 Ill.2d 458 (2006) (standard for postconviction stages; de novo review at first stage)
- Boclair v. Illinois, 202 Ill.2d 89 (2002) (frivolous/patently without merit includes standing; timing distinct from merit)
- Lawton, 212 Ill.2d 285 (2004) (civil commitment proceedings not within Post-Conviction Act; other remedies required)
- Hodges, 234 Ill.2d 1 (2009) (frivolous/patently meritless standard; merit defined as legal significance and standing)
- Rajagopal, 381 Ill.App.3d 326 (2008) (MSR tolling; timing not controlling standing under Act)
- Patrice v. Steward (People v. Edwards), 394 Ill.App.3d 368 (2009) (Appellate discussion of evidence and recantation; Commonwealth authority cited as law)