People v. Tate
89 N.E.3d 766
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- In May–July 2011 Edmond Tate was prosecuted for aggravated robbery (indictment filed May 25, 2011; arraignment/assignment activity occurred May 20 and June 9).
- Tate’s counsel filed a written motion for substitution of judge (SOJ) on June 17, 2011 (not included in record but conceded at the July 18 hearing).
- The trial court denied the SOJ as untimely, concluding assignment to Judge Kipperman occurred May 20, 2011.
- After denial, the case proceeded to a bench trial; Tate was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 28 years.
- On appeal Tate argued the SOJ was timely (within 10 days of knowledge of the judge’s assignment), and that denial rendered subsequent proceedings void. The State argued the motion was untimely and that any error was forfeited or produced only a voidable judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of SOJ (when could defendant be charged with knowledge of assignment) | Assignment occurred May 20, 2011 (courtroom remark); SOJ untimely | Earliest chargeable notice was June 9, 2011 (official half-sheet showing assignment); SOJ timely (filed June 17) | Court held defendant could not be charged with notice on May 20 (no judge named); June 9 is the earliest chargeable date, so SOJ filed June 17 was timely |
| Effect of erroneous denial — void vs. voidable proceedings | Subsequent orders were valid; any defect was nonjurisdictional and thus voidable; error forfeited without posttrial motion | Erroneous denial of a timely SOJ nullifies all subsequent actions by the trial judge (renders them void) and is reviewable | Court followed McDuffee: erroneous denial of a proper SOJ renders subsequent trial-court actions null and void and requires reversal and remand for a new trial |
| Forfeiture / plain error (failure to raise in posttrial motion) | Defendant forfeited by not raising in a posttrial motion; must show plain error or prejudice | SOJ is an absolute, constitutional right; error is automatic and not forfeited | Court held claim properly before it despite no posttrial motion because the right is automatic and constitutional; reversal required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McDuffee, 187 Ill. 2d 481 (1999) (erroneous denial of a timely SOJ renders subsequent actions by the trial judge null and void)
- People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (2015) (void-judgment analysis limited to lack of personal or subject-matter jurisdiction and related narrow categories)
- People v. Walker, 119 Ill. 2d 465 (1988) (statutory right to substitution protects fair trial; erroneous denial is reversible error)
- People v. Evans, 209 Ill. 2d 194 (2004) (statutory provisions construed liberally; timeliness depends on when defendant could be charged with knowledge of assignment)