People v. Taylor
2025 IL App (5th) 240771-U
Ill. App. Ct.2025Background
- James C. Taylor Jr. was convicted of two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child in 1998 and sentenced to concurrent 60-year prison terms.
- Taylor’s initial conviction stemmed from charges related to sexual acts committed between May 1996 and January 1997.
- After direct appeal and earlier unsuccessful postconviction efforts, Taylor filed a section 2-1401 petition for relief from judgment in 2021, over 20 years after sentencing.
- He argued the original charges were defective and any amendments were "substantial" because of incorrect offense dates and offense types.
- The circuit court dismissed the petition as untimely and on the basis that the arguments were previously litigated or lacked legal merit.
- Taylor’s appellate counsel (OSAD) sought to withdraw, contending there were no meritorious issues for appeal; the appellate court agreed and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Sec. 2-1401 petition | N/A | Taylor argued judgment void, so time limit inapplicable | Petition untimely; no exception applies |
| Substantive vs. formal amendments to charging document | N/A | Amendments were substantive (offense dates/types changed), requiring new information | Amendments did not affect jurisdiction nor render judgment void |
| Subject matter and personal jurisdiction | N/A | Defective charging instrument deprived court of jurisdiction | Court had both subject matter and personal jurisdiction |
| Constitutionality of charging statute | N/A | Statute was held unconstitutional and thus judgment void | Statute was reenacted and in effect at all relevant times |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Haynes, 192 Ill. 2d 437 (Section 2-1401 petition standards and function)
- People v. Gosier, 205 Ill. 2d 198 (Two-year limitations period for 2-1401 petitions is mandatory)
- People v. Caballero, 179 Ill. 2d 205 (Limitations doctrines for 2-1401 petitions)
- People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (Jurisdiction not dependent on charging instrument function or sufficiency)
- In re Luis R., 239 Ill. 2d 295 (Defects in charging instrument do not divest court of subject matter jurisdiction)