People v. PingeltonPeople v. Pingelton
Chief Justice Theis and Justices Anne M. Burke, Michael J. Burke, Overstreet, Carter, and Holder White concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶ 1 Petitioner, John Pingelton, challenges the second-stage dismissal of his postconviction petition for relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (
I. BACKGROUND
A. Conviction and Appeal
¶ 2
¶ 3
¶ 4 Petitioner was charged with two counts of criminal sexual assault (
¶ 5 Dr. Adams testified that he was board-certified in emergency medicine and had practiced as an emergency physician for 25 years. He also testified that he was familiar with the literаture on sexual assault examinations and had examined approximately 20 victims of sexual assault in the course of his career. Dr. Adams performed a pelvic examination of A.H. on July 17, 2005, which revealed no evidence of vaginal trauma. However, based on his experience and the relevant literature, Dr. Adams opined that the absence of trauma was not inconsistent with A.H.‘s allegation that petitioner inserted his fingers into her vagina. Dr. Adams explained that, in most of the sexual assault examinations he had performed, he did not find physical evidence of trauma.
¶ 6 On cross-examination, Dr. Adams testified that he had no opinion as to whether A.H. was sexually assaulted. He acknowledged that, in some of the other sexual assault examinations he had performеd, he did find evidence of trauma but that was not always the case. He also acknowledged that he did not know the underlying facts of the prior cases in which he performed sexual assault examinations. He further acknowledged that he is not a gynecologist and had never used, or been trained to use, a colposcope, which he described as an instrument used to magnify findings during a pelvic examination.
¶ 8 On cross-examination, Dr. Sliwa testified that he had no opinion as to whether K.S. was sexually assaulted. He acknowledged that he is not a gynecologist but explained that he had received some training in the field, although not in the use of a colposcope. Dr. Sliwa agreed that the use of a colposcope during his examination of K.S. might have revealed evidence of trauma that was not visible to the naked eye. He also agreed that it is possible for evidence of trauma to be detected weeks after an assault.
¶ 9 The jury found petitioner guilty of both counts, and the trial court sentenced him to consecutive 10-year prison terms. The appellate court affirmed on direct appeal. People v. Pingelton, No. 4-07-0133 (2007) (unpublished order under
¶ 10 In December 2015, petitioner pro se filed a postconviction petition alleging, inter alia, that he received ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel. With regard to his trial attorney, petitioner claimed that his counsel failed to object to the presentation of improрer expert testimony by Dr. Adams and Dr. Sliwa. With regard to his appellate counsel, petitioner claimed that his attorney failed to raise that issue on direct appeal. The circuit court advanced the petition to the second stage and appointed counsel to represent petitioner.
¶ 11 In March 2016, the State filed a motion to dismiss petitioner‘s petition, arguing that it contained claims that were conclusory, meritless, waived, and barred by res judicata. The motion was served on petitioner‘s appointed counsel.
¶ 13 Appointed counsel‘s
¶ 14 Petitioner filed two responses to counsel‘s motion to withdraw. In the first response, petitioner argued that counsel did not review his pro se claims or the record and failed to raise additional claims that petitioner had proposed. Petitioner further contended that, if the prosecution had disclosed the victims’ medical records before trial, then trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach the victims and treating physicians with purported discrepancies between the records and the witnesses’ testimony. Petitioner also reiterated his contention that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to presentation of the treating physicians as expert witnesses. Petitioner requested that the court allow appointed counsel to withdraw, permit him to amend his pro se petition, and advance the petition to the third stage.
¶ 16 Appointed postconviction counsel filed a reply, reiterating his conclusion that petitioner had no meritorious issues to be argued in postconviction proceedings.
¶ 17 On May 8, 2018, the circuit court made a docket entry indicating that the case was set for a “status” hearing the following day. At that hearing, the State and postconviction counsel appearеd personally, and petitioner appeared via telephone. The circuit court first heard argument from the State on its motion to dismiss, during which the State said it would “adopt and incorporate all of the arguments that are contained within [postconviction counsel‘s motion to withdraw].” The State further argued that petitioner‘s trial attorney was not ineffective because he was able to elicit favorable testimony from the State‘s experts. Postconviction counsel did not respond to the State‘s arguments in support of the motion to dismiss.
¶ 18 The circuit court then addressed the motion to withdraw filed by postconviction counsel. In opposition to his appointed counsel‘s argument, petitioner disputed the grounds asserted as the basis for withdrawal. In particular, he asserted that his appointed counsel had not adequately reviewed the record and presented his claims and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the treating physicians’ testimony because the State did not include the physicians on its witness list. He also argued that Dr. Sliwa should not have been permitted to offer expert testimony that went beyond his treatment of K.S. Petitioner also requested that the circuit court “remove” appointed counsel and allow him to proceed pro se.
¶ 19 Postconviction counsel responded that he had examined petitioner‘s claims, concluded they were meritless, and, therefore, requested leave to withdraw. As to petitioner‘s challenge to the treating physicians’ qualifiсations to offer expert testimony, counsel explained that the physicians were “experts purely due to their knowledge and experience.”
¶ 20 The circuit court took the matter under advisement and issued a written ruling on May 22, 2018. In that order, the court granted postconviction counsel‘s motion
¶ 21 Petitioner‘s pro se motion to reconsider asserted that the сourt had failed to address all of his claims, that appointed counsel falsely certified compliance with
¶ 22 On appeal, petitioner argued that the circuit court violated his right to procedural due process by granting the State‘s motion to dismiss without giving him notice of the motion and an opportunity to respond. 2021 IL App (4th) 180751, ¶¶ 6, 30, 32. He further argued that the circuit court erred in granting appointed counsel‘s motion to withdraw because his pro se petition raised the potentially meritorious claim that he was denied effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Id. ¶¶ 6, 30, 36.
¶ 23 The appellate court affirmed. Id. ¶¶ 6, 30, 75-76. Initially, the appellate court concluded that petitioner had not been provided sufficient notice of the State‘s motion to dismiss or given an opportunity to respond before the circuit court granted the motion. Id. ¶ 32. The court noted that, based on the procedure employed by the circuit court, the only party that addressed the motion to dismiss was the State, while postconviction counsel and petitioner addressed the motion to withdraw exclusively. Id. ¶ 33. In addition, the court also observed that the motion to dismiss was served on postconviction counsel and that the record did not indicate that petitioner had personally received the motion. Id. ¶ 34. Further, the appellate court reasoned that, because the motion to dismiss had been filed two yeаrs before the hearing, petitioner had no reason to believe that the motion would be argued at that hearing, which had been set for “status.” Id. Moreover, because petitioner was still represented by counsel when the State‘s motion was argued, he could not have personally responded to that motion. Id. The appellate court held that the circuit
¶ 24 However, the appellate court ultimately concluded that error was harmless, where petitioner‘s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel lacked merit. Id. ¶¶ 32, 34, 73. The court explained that, because trial counsel‘s decision not to object to the expert testimony of the two doctors was a matter of trial strategy, it could not form the basis for а claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. ¶¶ 36, 44, 68-71. The court noted that the Illinois Rules of Evidence do not require that the trial court certify a witness as an expert before that witness may provide opinion testimony. Id. ¶ 46 (citing
¶ 25 The appellate court further explained that trial counsel‘s decision not to object to the treating physicians’ testimony as to the frequency of trauma in sexual-assault victims was not ineffective, where both doctors had testified as to their prior emergency-room experience dealing with victims of sexual violence. Id. ¶¶ 69-70. The appellate сourt held that, because the postconviction petition failed to state “the gist” of a constitutional claim, any error related to the motion to dismiss was harmless. Id. ¶ 73. For the same reasons, the circuit court did not err in granting appointed postconviction counsel‘s motion to withdraw. Id. ¶¶ 68, 73.
¶ 26 We subsequently granted petitioner leave to appeal.
II. ANALYSIS
¶ 27
¶ 28 The primary question presented for our review is whether the circuit court committed reversible error by granting the State‘s motion to dismiss petitioner‘s postconviction petition. Our review of a circuit court‘s dismissal of a postconviction petition at the second stage is de novo. People v. Dupree, 2018 IL 122307, ¶ 29; People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458, 473 (2006). Also, the determination of whether a procedure satisfies due process is a question of lаw, which we review de novo. People v. Stoecker, 2020 IL 124807, ¶ 17 (citing People v. Cardona, 2013 IL 114076, ¶ 15); People v. Hall, 198 Ill. 2d 173, 177 (2001). Finally, the legal question of whether a procedural error is subject to harmless error review is similarly subject to de novo review. See Stoecker, 2020 IL 124807, ¶¶ 17, 23; People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 28.
¶ 29 Petitioner argues that the circuit court‘s dismissal of his petition deprived him of procedural due process in granting the State‘s motion without sufficient notice and an opportunity to respond. He also contends that the circuit court‘s decision to conduct a hearing on the merits of his petition constituted a procedural due process violation because the matter had been set for “status” and none of the parties had been given notice that the State‘s dispositive motion would be addressed at the hearing.
¶ 30 The State responds that the circuit court acted properly in dismissing the petition because petitiоner had adequate opportunity to oppose the motion to dismiss. Alternatively, the State argues that any error in the circuit court‘s disposition was harmless because the claims asserted in the postconviction petition lacked merit.
A. Postconviction Proceedings
¶ 31
¶ 32 The Act provides a method by which persons under criminal sentence can assert that their convictions were the result of a substantial denial of their federal or state constitutional rights. People v. Tate, 2012 IL 112214, ¶ 8. At the first stage of postconviction proceedings, the circuit court must independently review the postconviction petition and shall dismiss it if it is “frivolous or is patently without merit.”
¶ 33 At the second stage, counsel may be appointed to assist an indigent defendant. Tate, 2012 IL 112214, ¶ 10. Postconviction counsel must consult with the defendant to ascertain his contentions of deprivation of constitutional rights, examine the record of the proceedings and the trial, and make any amendments to the pro se petition that are necessary to adequately present the defendant‘s contentions.
¶ 34 Also, at the second stage, the State may file a motion to dismiss or an answer to the petition. People v. Domagala, 2013 IL 113688, ¶ 33. In deciding a motion to dismiss, the circuit court must determine whether the petition and accompanying documentation make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation. People v. Johnson, 2018 IL 122227, ¶ 15. If the petition makes the requisite showing, it is advanced for a third-stage evidentiary hearing. Id. If not, dismissal is proper. Id.
B. Procedural Due Process
¶ 35
¶ 36 The right to procedural due process is guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions.
¶ 37
¶ 38 Petitioner argues that his postconviction petition was dismissed in violation of his procedural due process rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard. We agree.
¶ 39 In this case, the circuit court docketed the case for a “status” hearing on May 9, 2018, but when the case was called, the circuit court proceeded to address both the State‘s motion to dismiss and postconviction counsel‘s motion to withdraw. This court has long held that a circuit court‘s discretion in resolving a postconviction petition does not permit the court to ” ‘convert a status call to a hearing on the merits without notice to the parties.’ ” Id. at 434 (quoting People v. Bounds, 182 Ill. 2d 1, 5 (1998)). Such a procedure deprived both petitioner and his counsel of notice that the motion to dismiss would be addressed during the hearing and violated petitioner‘s procedural right to due process. Id. at 435; Bounds, 182 Ill. 2d at 5; see also Stoecker, 2020 IL 124807, ¶ 22.
¶ 40 Moreover, although petitioner participated in the hearing by telephone, he had not been served with the State‘s motion to dismiss and had no opportunity to respond directly to that motion. As the appellate court noted, based on the manner in which the circuit court conducted the hearing, the only party to address the motion to dismiss was the State. Thereafter, the circuit court heard argument from petitioner and postconviction counsel on the motion to withdraw. The court then took the matter under advisement and later granted both motions. This procedure effectively deprived petitioner of an opportunity to respond to the State‘s motion to dismiss. Because he was still represented by counsel, petitioner had no right to counter the State‘s argument directly. See People v. Triplett, 2022 IL App (3d) 200017, ¶ 16; People v. Williams, 2021 IL App (3d) 190082, ¶ 22; People v. Bell, 2018 IL App (4th) 151016, ¶ 28. And because his counsel‘s requеst to withdraw essentially conceded that dismissal was proper, petitioner was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the State‘s dispositive motion. Given the lack of notice that either motion would be addressed at the “status” hearing and the lack of a meaningful opportunity to argue against the State‘s motion, petitioner was denied the right to procedural due process.
D. Harmless Error Analysis Applies
¶ 42
¶ 43 The determination that petitioner‘s right to procedural due process was violated does not conclude оur analysis because the State has argued that the error was harmless. Petitioner contends that the violation is not subject to harmless error review because it affected the integrity of the postconviction proceedings. We reject petitioner‘s contention and hold that harmless error analysis applies in this case.
¶ 44 As we observed in Stoecker, “[t]his court has adhered to a strong presumption that most errors of constitutional dimension are subject to harmless error analysis.” Stoecker, 2020 IL 124807, ¶ 23 (citing People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 13 (2010), and People v. Lofton, 194 Ill. 2d 40, 61 (2000)). Application of harmless error analysis is predicated on the idea that an individual‘s interest in an error-free proceeding must be balanced against society‘s interests in finality and judicial economy. Id. In light of the need to balance those competing interests, we have held that only a structural error requires automatic reversal. Id. An error is structural if it constitutes a systemic error that erodes the integrity of the judicial process and undermines the fairness of the proceedings. Id.; see also People v. Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d 173, 197-98 (2009). In addition, we have abided by the principle that an error will be deemed structural when it results in ” ‘consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate.’ ” Stoecker, 2020 IL 124807, ¶ 23 (quoting
¶ 45 In Stoecker, we held that a lack of notice and the denial of a reasonable opportunity to respond to a dispositive motion in a collateral civil proceeding under section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (
¶ 46 Here, although petitioner has sought collateral relief under a different statutory framework—postconviction proceedings under the Act as opposed to a claim for relief from judgment under section 2-1401—both types of proceedings provide an avenue for seeking collateral relief from a judgment enterеd in a criminal case. See id. ¶ 18; Johnson, 2018 IL 122227, ¶ 14. And we find nothing in the terms or underlying purpose of the Act that would preclude application of harmless error review. In addition, the procedural due process error asserted by petitioner here is virtually identical to that addressed in Stoecker. And the fact that the Act provides a mechanism for asserting claims of constitutional dimension does not necessarily preclude harmless error review. See Stoecker, 2020 IL 124807, ¶ 23. Rather, courts must look to whether a procedural error in a postconviction proceeding is “unquantifiable and indeterminate” such that it rendered the proceeding “automatically unfair or unreliable.” Id. ¶ 25. We perceive no sound reason to depart from the analysis and conclusion articulated in Stoecker. Accordingly, where it is possible to determine that the petitioner was not harmed by the alleged constitutional deprivation and that further proceedings would be futile, harmless error analysis applies to the second-stage dismissal of a postconviction petition.
¶ 47 Petitioner disagrees and argues that this court‘s precedent precludes that result. Specifically, petitioner relies on our decisions in Kitchen and Bounds. However,
¶ 48 Petitioner also relies on Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d at 46-52, which held that harmless error analysis does not apply in cases where appointed counsel has failed to comply with the mandates of
¶ 49 In Suarez, the court acknowledged and confirmed the long-standing precedent that a failure to comply with
¶ 50 The nature of the violation at issue in Suarez is fundamentally different from the one presented in this case. A conclusion that postconviction counsel‘s performance was “so deficient that it amounts to virtually no representation at all” raises fundamentаl questions as to whether petitioner‘s claims were properly presented and jeopardizes the fairness and reliability of the proceedings. In addition, this court has recognized that we cannot presume that the circuit court would have dismissed a postconviction petition if counsel had adequately satisfied
E. The Error Was Harmless
¶ 51
¶ 52 Petitioner contends that, even if harmless error analysis applies, dismissal of his postconviction petition was erroneous because it asserted potentially meritorious claims that (1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to improper expert testimony by Dr. Adams and Dr. Sliwa regarding the frequency of vaginal trauma in victims of sеxual assault and (2) his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial counsel‘s ineffectiveness on direct appeal. We, therefore, consider whether petitioner made a substantial showing as to either claim.
¶ 53 A claim asserting the ineffective assistance of counsel is governed by the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). People v. Moore, 2020 IL 124538, ¶ 28. To prevail on such a claim, a criminal defendant must demonstrate that counsel‘s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance resulted in prejudice to the defendant. Id. ¶ 29 (citing Domagala, 2013 IL 113688, ¶ 36, and Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687). In seeking to establish ineffective assistance, “a defendant must show that counsel‘s performance was objectively unreasonable under prevailing professional norms and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel‘s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of
¶ 54 Petitioner argues that the performance of his trial counsel was deficient because his attorney failed to object to the admissibility of the treating physicians’ expert testimony regarding the likelihood that physical evidence of trauma would be apparent during a pelvic exam of a sexual assault victim. With regard to this issue, petitioner claims that the appellate court erred in holding that he could not еstablish his counsel‘s ineffectiveness because the decision not to object to the doctors’ opinion testimony was a matter of trial strategy. We need not decide whether the appellate court erred in basing its decision on trial strategy because, even if that were not the case, petitioner‘s claim lacks merit.
¶ 55 It is established that a witness is ” ‘permitted to testify as an expert if his experience and qualifications afford him knowledge which is not common to lay persons and where such testimony will aid the trier of fact in reaching its conclusion.’ ” People v. King, 2020 IL 123926, ¶ 35 (quoting People v. Enis, 139 Ill. 2d 264, 288 (1990)). This standard has been codified in
¶ 56 Illinois law does not impose any explicit requirements as to the level or extent of experience, education, scientific study, or training that is required to qualify a witness to offer expert testimony on a subject. People v. Lovejoy, 235 Ill. 2d 97, 125 (2009). In determining whether such testimony is proper, the relevant question is whether the witness has knowledge and experience beyond the average citizen that would assist the jury in evaluating the evidence. Thompson v. Gordon, 221 Ill. 2d 414, 428-29 (2006).
¶ 57 Petitioner has not challenged the admission of the treating physicians’ testimony regarding their respective examinations of A.H. and K.S. or the evidence that neither doctor found any indication of sexual trauma. He contends, however, that, because the doctors were not practicing or board-certified gynecologists, they
¶ 58 Dr. Adams and Dr. Sliwa testified regarding their medical education, clinical experience, and familiarity with the scientific literature with respect to the examination of sexual assault victims. Both doctors were board-certified in emergency medicine and had examined numerous sexual assault victims while practicing in that field. In additiоn, Dr. Sliwa testified that, as a physician, he received training in gynecology. Although neither doctor was a gynecologist or trained on the use of a colposcope, those facts did not render their opinions inadmissible. See People v. Pasch, 152 Ill. 2d 133, 179 (1992). Instead, any vulnerability relating to an expert witness‘s qualifications, experience, or basis for opinion may be explored on cross-examination and will affect the weight of that testimony rather than its admissibility. Id.; see also People v. Williams, 238 Ill. 2d 125, 140-41 (2010).
¶ 59 For similar reasons, we reject petitioner‘s assertion that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the doctors’ opinion testimony on the ground that it was based on speculation. Both doctors, who were board-certified in emergency medicine, explained that their opinions were based on persоnal experience working in that field and also on the scientific literature pertaining to the examination of sexual assault victims. Moreover, both doctors testified that their experience included providing treatment to patients who sought treatment for sexual assault. Because petitioner was able to cross-examine Dr. Adams and Dr. Sliwa regarding the underlying bases for their opinions, any weakness in the foundations for those opinions would go only to the weight of that evidence and not its admissibility. See Pasch, 152 Ill. 2d at 179. As a consequence, petitioner‘s reliance on People v. Cloutier, 156 Ill. 2d 483 (1993), is misplaced. In Cloutier, this court held that the trial court properly excluded an expert witness‘s testimony regarding the frequency of injury as a result of sexual assault on the basis that it was speculative, where the witness “specifically disclaimed any recall of the number of forced sex victims who had not suffered injury *** as a result of such conduct.” Id. at 502. Thus, this court‘s decision was predicated in part on the fact that the challenged testimony by the expert witness was speculative and uncertain because he had no recollection of the
¶ 60 A defendant‘s trial attorney cannot be considered ineffective for failing to raise or pursue what would have been a meritless motion or objection. See People v. Rogers, 2021 IL 126163, ¶ 32. In light of the above, we conclude that petitioner‘s trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance based on the failure to challengе the treating physicians’ expert testimony on the likelihood of discovering physical evidence of trauma when examining a sexual assault victim.
¶ 61 Petitioner further contends that his trial counsel should have objected to the circuit court‘s failure to certify the treating physicians as experts, which rendered their expert testimony inadmissible. We disagree.
¶ 62 As the appellate court pointed out,
¶ 63 Because a defendant must satisfy both prongs of Strickland and we have concluded that petitioner did not make a substantial showing of deficient performance, we need not consider whether he had shown prejudice as a result of his trial counsel‘s representation.
¶ 64 Our determination that petitioner did not show that his trial counsel was deficient also defeats his claim that appellate counsel was ineffective. Appellate counsel is not obligated to brief and argue every conceivable issue on appeal, and a defendant cannot claim prejudice based on appellate counsel‘s failure to raise an issue that is not meritorious. People v. Haynes, 192 Ill. 2d 437, 476 (2000). Here,
III. CONCLUSION
¶ 65
¶ 66 In sum, we hold that petitioner‘s right to procedural due process was violated where the circuit court dismissed his postconviction petition without affording him adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. However, because the claims asserted in the petition lack merit, he did not present a substantial showing of a constitutional deprivation at trial or on direct appeal. Accordingly, the procedural due process error in the circuit court‘s second-stage dismissal of his petition was harmless, and we affirm the judgment of the appellate court, which affirmed the judgment of the circuit court.
¶ 67 Judgments affirmed.