THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent-Appellee, v. CORDELL WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant.
No. 1-12-0796
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
JULY 14, 2014
2014 IL App (1st) 1120796
Honorable Vincent M. Gaughan, Judge Presiding.
FIRST DIVISION. NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Presiding Justice Connors and Justice Delort concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: Appellant‘s petition pursuant to
¶ 2 Defendant-Appellant Cordell Williams (Williams) appeals from the dismissal of his petition pursuant to
¶ 3 BACKGROUND
¶ 4 In May 1994, Williams was 19 years old and a member of a street gang. Shortly after midnight on May 26, 1994, he was driving his car with three other gang members as passengers. One of those passengers, David Evans, told Williams that he saw rival gang members in a restaurant and asked Williams to stop the car. Evans got out of the car, retrieved a gun from the trunk of the car, and proceeded to fatally shoot two people in the restaurant. After the shootings, Evans returned to the car and Williams drove him and the other passengers away from the scene of the crime.
¶ 5 Williams was charged with first degree murder pursuant to Illinois’ accountability statute, which provides that “[a] person is legally accountable for the conduct of another when” “[e]ither before or during the commission of an offense, and with the intent to promote or facilitate such commission, he solicits, aids, abets, agrees or attempts to aid, such other person in the planning or commission of the offense.”
¶ 6 The applicable sentencing statute at the time mandated that in first degree murder cases, the “court shall sentence the defendant to a term of natural life imprisonment when the death penalty is not imposed” where the defendant “is found guilty of murdering more than one victim
¶ 7 Williams engaged in extensive post-conviction litigation. First, Williams directly appealed his conviction, asserting error in the trial court‘s jury instructions. We affirmed the conviction and sentence on March 26, 1999. Williams filed his first post-conviction petition in March 2000, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. After that petition was denied by the trial court, Williams argued on appeal that Public Act 83-942, which amended the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, violated the Illinois Constitution. We disagreed and affirmed denial of his first post-conviction petition on September 6, 2002. Two weeks later, Williams filed a second post-conviction petition claiming actual innocence on the basis of new evidence. The trial court dismissed that petition on September 30, 2002, and we affirmed in September 2004.
¶ 8 Williams filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in April 2008, alleging, among other claims, that his due process rights were violated because he did not have an opportunity to respond to the prosecution‘s argument on accountability and that his sentence was unconstitutional. The trial court dismissed the habeas corpus petition in June 2008. We affirmed on December 15, 2009, finding no issues of arguable merit.
¶ 9 On October 18, 2011, Williams filed a pro se “Motion to Vacate Void Judgment” (the Petition) pursuant to
¶ 10 The trial court dismissed the Petition on January 27, 2012 as untimely, as it was filed well beyond the two-year limitations period prescribed by
¶ 11 Following the trial court‘s dismissal of the Petition, the United States Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, which held that a sentence of “mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment‘s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’ ” 567 U.S. at 465, 132 S. Ct 2455, 2460 (2012). On appeal, Williams’ chief argument is that, in light of Miller, the Illinois statute mandating a life sentence for those convicted of multiple murders was unconstitutional as applied to him. Although acknowledging that he was over 18 at the time of the murders, Williams contends that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing at which the trial court may consider mitigating factors such as his relatively young age at the time of the crime, his limited degree of participation in the murders, and his lack of prior convictions. Williams also argues that at re-sentencing he should receive a credit for his time spent in pre-sentence custody. The State argues that, notwithstanding Miller, Williams’ sentence was not void and the Petition was untimely. The State also contends the Petition is barred by res judicata and that Williams cannot rely on Miller for the first time on appeal.
¶ 12 ANALYSIS
¶ 13
¶ 14 However,
¶ 15 As the Petition was dismissed as untimely despite Williams’ claim that his sentence was void, we will review the dismissal de novo. People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1, 18 (2007) (“when a court enters either a judgment on the pleadings or a dismissal in a section 2-1401 proceeding, that order will be reviewed, on appeal, de novo.“); Morfin, 2012 IL App (1st) 103568, ¶ 30 (“this court reviews de novo the disposition of a section 2-1401 petition other than after an evidentiary hearing.“).
¶ 16 As there is no dispute that the Petition was filed more than two years after Williams’ sentence, its timeliness turns on whether the voidness exception applies due to the United States Supreme Court‘s decision in Miller. We note that we faced virtually the same issue in People v. Gray, 2013 IL App (1st) 112572. We conclude that our reasoning in that decision applies, especially as the Illinois Supreme Court recently decided Miller‘s impact on the sentencing statute.
¶ 17 In Gray, a juvenile defendant was found guilty of first degree murder through accountability; since he had a prior murder conviction, by statute he received a mandatory life sentence. 2013 IL App (1st) 112572, ¶ 3;
¶ 18 Addressing the voidness issue, we differentiated between a facially unconstitutional sentencing statute and one that could be either constitutionally or unconstitutionally applied. We explained that “[a] statute that is unconstitutional on its face—that is, where no set of circumstances exists under which it would be valid—is void ab initio, while a statute that is merely unconstitutional as applied is not.” ¶ 10. In other words, we stated the principle “that which is unconstitutional is not necessarily void.” Id. We held that the sentencing statute was not void, notwithstanding Miller‘s prohibition of mandatory life sentences for minors, since it could be constitutionally applied to adult defendants. Because ”Miller v. Alabama does not affect the validity of the natural life imprisonment statute as to nonminor defendants,” we concluded “the statute is not unconstitutional on its face.” Id. ¶ 11. Thus the defendant‘s
¶ 19 In this appeal, the State argues that our reasoning in Gray controls and that Williams’ Petition is likewise untimely. Williams responds that we should follow the different result reached in People v. Luciano, where our Second District held that a postconviction petition asserting voidness under Miller raised “a proper voidness challenge” since “a sentence that contravenes the Constitution may be challenged at any time.” 2013 IL App (2d) 110792, ¶ 48. Williams contends that we should follow Luciano rather than Gray in light of Illinois Supreme Court precedent that an unconstitutional sentence or statute can be challenged at any time. See People v. Brown, 225 Ill. 2d 188, 203 (2007) (sentence that violates constitution is void from inception and subject to challenge at any time); People v. McCarty, 223 Ill. 2d 109, 123 (2006) (challenge to constitutionality of a statute can be raised at any time); People v. Guevara, 216 Ill. 2d 533, 542 (2005) (defendant may argue a criminal statute was unconstitutional and void ab initio at any time).
¶ 20 Any ambiguity in the case law has been resolved, however, as the Illinois Supreme Court recently decided the precise issue of whether Miller rendered the mandatory life sentence provision of
¶ 21 The defendant in Davis, like Williams here, was subject to a mandatory life sentence pursuant to
¶ 22 Our supreme court‘s analysis recognized that “[i]f a new constitutional rule renders a statute facially unconstitutional, the statute is void ab initio.” Id. ¶ 25. Moreover, the Davis court reaffirmed that “a sentence that violates the constitution is void from its inception and may be attacked at any time and in any court, either directly or collaterally.” Id. ¶ 26 (citations omitted). However, the court held that “[a] statute is facially unconstitutional only if there are no circumstances in which the statute could be validly applied.” Id. ¶ 25. The Davis court explained that even if “the statute could be found unconstitutional under some set of circumstances” this “does not establish the facial invalidity of the statute.” Id. Rather, “a facial challenge must fail if any situation exists where the statute could be validly applied.” Id.
¶ 23 Examining
¶ 24 The Davis court went on to hold that the defendant was nevertheless entitled to a new sentencing hearing since Miller applied retroactively to juvenile defendants sentenced to a mandatory term of life without parole. Id. ¶¶ 34-43. As the Davis defendant had been a juvenile offender, his mandatory life sentence was invalid. Id. ¶ 43. However, the Davis court emphasized that ”Miller does not invalidate the penalty of natural life without parole for multiple murderers, only its mandatory imposition on juveniles.” Id. ¶ 43. Here, as there is no dispute that Williams was 19 at the time of his offense, Davis does not entitle him to a new sentencing hearing.
¶ 25 In short, the Illinois Supreme Court in Davis concluded that the very sentencing statute at issue in this appeal was not facially unconstitutional even after the United States Supreme Court‘s Miller decision. As Davis confirmed that section 5-8-1(a)(1)(c) can be validly applied to adult defendants, we must reject Williams’ argument that his sentence was rendered void by Miller. Therefore, Williams’ sentence was not void but “merely voidable if challenged in a timely manner.” See Gray, 2013 IL App (1st) 112572, ¶ 11.
¶ 26 As in Gray, William‘s petition here was not timely. See id. ¶ 12. Williams’ sentence was not void, and there has been no contention that legal incapacity, duress, or fraudulent concealment tolled the applicable two-year limitation period. As the Petition was filed well over a decade after Williams’ sentencing, it is untimely and we affirm the trial court‘s dismissal of the Petition on that basis.
¶ 27 Although the Petition‘s untimeliness is alone sufficient to affirm, the trial court correctly held that the Petition was also subject to dismissal on res judicata grounds since it raised
¶ 28 The fact that Williams’ appeal departs from the arguments raised in the original pro se Petition and instead raises the Miller holding for the first time does not necessarily support dismissal of the Petition because Miller had not been decided when Williams filed his original pro se Petition. However, Williams used the wrong procedural vehicle to assert constitutional challenges to his sentence. A proper
¶ 29 As we have concluded that the Petition which gave rise to the instant appeal was not only the wrong procedural vehicle but was also untimely, we do not address the merits of Williams’ arguments that a mandatory natural-life sentence was unconstitutional as applied to a 19-year-old defendant under his particular circumstances, or his argument that he is entitled to credit for time spent in custody prior to his sentencing.
¶ 30 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.
¶ 31 Affirmed.