People v. Walker
93 N.E.3d 734
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2018Background
- Defendant Christ E. Walker was convicted by jury of multiple violent offenses, including first degree murder and attempted murder of a peace officer; aggregate sentence 69 years.
- After direct appeal and several collateral proceedings, Walker filed a pro se 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 petition in 2015 asserting (1) a void firearm enhancement to his murder sentence and (2) insufficiency of evidence for attempted murder of a peace officer. The petition was filed nearly 10 years after judgment.
- The trial court appointed counsel for the section 2-1401 proceeding. Appointed counsel believed his role was limited to presenting Walker’s pro se claims and declined to review transcripts or amend the petition.
- The State moved to dismiss the petition as untimely, noting the petition alleged no statutory basis (legal disability, duress, fraudulent concealment, or void order) to excuse the two-year limitations period.
- Appointed counsel did not amend the petition to allege facts excusing untimeliness (though counsel sought an evidentiary hearing), and the trial court dismissed the petition. Walker appealed claiming inadequate assistance by appointed counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) What level of assistance must appointed counsel provide in a section 2-1401 proceeding? | State: Section 2-1401 is civil; no statutory level like postconviction counsel; Strickland standard not applicable. | Walker: Appointed counsel must provide adequate/reasonable assistance (comparable to Rule 651(c) / postconviction practice) or at least exercise due diligence. | Court: Although the precise rule is unsettled, counsel must satisfy either reasonable-assistance or Tedder due-diligence standards; here counsel failed under both. |
| 2) Did appointed counsel render adequate assistance by failing to amend an untimely petition to plead facts to overcome the time bar? | State: Any attempt to excuse timeliness lacks merit and the petition properly was dismissed; counsel’s actions were adequate. | Walker: Counsel was ineffective for failing to amend the petition to allege facts (e.g., mental-health confinement, lockdowns, lack of law-library access) that could excuse the delay. | Court: Counsel was unreasonable for failing to amend or plead available facts to overcome the timeliness bar and for refusing to review transcripts; remand for new counsel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tedder v. Fairman, 92 Ill. 2d 216 (Ill. 1982) (appointed civil counsel must exercise due diligence; amend deficient petitions when court so directs)
- People v. Pinkonsly, 207 Ill. 2d 555 (Ill. 2003) (Strickland standard inappropriate for section 2-1401; trial court may assume comparable assistance but issue unresolved)
- People v. Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d 34 (Ill. 2007) (appointed counsel must allege available facts to overcome procedural bars in postconviction context)
- People v. Caballero, 179 Ill. 2d 205 (Ill. 1997) (section 2-1401 two-year limitations; untimely petitions require statutory excuse or show the order is void)
- People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37 (Ill. 2007) (remand required when appointed counsel fails to provide required assistance regardless of claim merits)
- People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458 (Ill. 2006) (appointed postconviction counsel not required to raise new or novel claims beyond the petition)
- People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192 (Ill. 2004) (appointed counsel who finds claims meritless may move to withdraw under Rule 137)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel in criminal trials; not directly applied to section 2-1401 proceedings)