People v. Stoecker, 181 N.E.3d 201

In 1998 Stoecker was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated criminal sexual assault of a 15‑year‑old; he received concurrent natural‑life and 30‑year sentences.
Direct appeal affirmed; over the next 16+ years Stoecker filed multiple collateral challenges without success.
In August 2016 he filed a section 2‑1401 petition asserting his extended‑term life sentence violated Apprendi and arguing Apprendi should apply retroactively in light of Johnson and Welch; he also argued the sentence was void.
The circuit court appointed counsel (Sept. 26, 2016); the State moved to dismiss (Nov. 14, 2016); the court dismissed the petition on Nov. 18, 2016, without counsel’s participation or notice of the hearing.
The appellate court affirmed, holding any due‑process defect was harmless because the petition was untimely, barred by res judicata, and legally meritless; it also held counsel’s lack of participation did not require remand because the petition was incurable.
The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the procedural error was subject to harmless‑error review and that the petition failed as a matter of law (untimely, not a void judgment, and precluded by De La Paz).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal without notice to appointed counsel violated procedural due process	Stoecker: court denied meaningful opportunity to respond; ex parte ruling violated due process	State: counsel was served and had opportunity; dismissal was proper on the pleadings	Court: Due‑process violation occurred but was harmless error because petition was incurably deficient
Whether Apprendi error renders sentence void and thus excusable from 2‑year limit	Stoecker: sentence void under Apprendi; void judgment may be attacked anytime	State: Apprendi is procedural and not retroactive on collateral review; not a void judgment	Court: Judgment not void; Apprendi did not render sentence void; petition untimely
Whether Johnson/Welch changed retroactivity analysis to revive Apprendi claims	Stoecker: Johnson/Welch show some rules apply retroactively and support his claim	State: Johnson/Welch do not disturb De La Paz’s conclusion that Apprendi is procedural	Court: Johnson/Welch do not undermine De La Paz; Apprendi remains nonretroactive on collateral review
Whether appointed counsel’s failure to appear or file pleadings warranted remand	Stoecker: appointed counsel provided no representation, so proceedings unfair	State: no prejudice because petition was incurably meritless; counsel had no duty to cure an incurable petition	Court: No remand; counsel’s omission not reversible where counsel could not have cured legal defects

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
People v. De La Paz, 204 Ill. 2d 426 (2003) (Apprendi announced a procedural rule that does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (struck down part of federal sentencing statute as unconstitutionally vague)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson rule was substantive and retroactive; explains retroactivity framework)
People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1 (2007) (section 2‑1401 governed by civil practice rules; court may render judgment on pleadings after responsive period)
People v. Pinkonsly, 207 Ill. 2d 555 (2003) (no statutory right to counsel under section 2‑1401; Strickland standard not applicable)
Tedder v. Fairman, 92 Ill. 2d 216 (1982) (appointed counsel expected to exercise due diligence in civil habeas/mandamus context)
United States v. Gonzalez‑Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (distinguishes structural errors from those subject to harmless‑error review)