{
  "id": 5147427,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVEN L. WOODS, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Woods",
  "decision_date": "1992-12-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 3-92-0280",
  "first_page": "559",
  "last_page": "561",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "239 Ill. App. 3d 559"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "578 N.E.2d 297",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 Ill. App. 3d 401",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        8498807
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/218/0401-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "589 N.E.2d 190",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 Ill. App. 3d 986",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5245324
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/225/0986-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 274,
    "char_count": 4365,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.749,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.470291726553117e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39860914671087
    },
    "sha256": "7bd5d7204204b3638b13ce70f245a892185471c871a098567ae722ab4ef940e7",
    "simhash": "1:996a84054160b5f8",
    "word_count": 717
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:51:04.850958+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "BARRY, P.J., and STOUDER, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVEN L. WOODS, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE McCUSKEY\ndelivered the opinion of the court;\nOn April 18, 1985, the defendant, Steven L. Woods, entered a negotiated plea of guilty to two counts of robbery (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 18\u20141(a)). He was then sentenced to two concurrent terms of five years\u2019 imprisonment. On January 27, 1992, Woods filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The petition was dismissed on February 25, 1992. Woods appeals. We affirm.\nThe record shows that on February 18, 1992, the State filed a motion to dismiss claiming that Woods\u2019 petition was frivolous and patently without merit. On February 20, 1991, a hearing was held in Woods\u2019 absence. The trial court found that Woods could not invoke post-conviction relief because he was no longer imprisoned or on mandatory supervised release. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 122\u20141.) The court further found Woods\u2019 petition was frivolous and patently without merit. Woods\u2019 sole argument on appeal is that the trial court was improperly tainted by the State\u2019s premature motion to dismiss. We disagree.\nWe note the State initially argues that we do not have jurisdiction because Woods\u2019 notice of appeal was not timely filed. Our review of the record indicates that the notice of appeal was untimely only because Woods had received late notice of the denial of his petition. Since the late filing was not Woods\u2019 fault, we extend the time for filing the notice of appeal. Accordingly, we find Woods\u2019 appeal was timely filed. See 134 Ill. 2d R. 606(c).\nWoods argues that the trial judge did not follow the proper procedure pursuant to the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 122\u20141 et seq.). Therefore, Woods argues that the dismissal of his petition must be reversed and the cause should be remanded for appointment of counsel and further consideration under sections 122 \u2014 4 through 122 \u2014 6 of the Act. We disagree.\nWoods supports his argument with the case of People v. Merritte (1992), 225 Ill. App. 3d 986, 589 N.E.2d 190. In Merritte, the State moved to dismiss the defendant\u2019s post-conviction petition within 30 days of its filing. This court held that the premature input by the State had tainted the trial court\u2019s decision to dismiss the defendant\u2019s post-conviction petition. In Merritte, the facts clearly show that the State argued at length its motion to dismiss. Further, in Merritte, the trial court dismissed the defendant\u2019s petition \u201cbased on the reasons stated by counsel in his argument.\u201d\nThe State, however, contends that People v. Mitchell (1991), 218 Ill. App. 3d 401, 578 N.E.2d 297, is controlling. We agree. In Mitchell, this court recognized that neither the Post-Conviction Hearing Act nor case law holds that the premature filing of a motion to dismiss by the State per se contaminates the process. In Mitchell, we noted that the trial judge\u2019s findings clearly showed an independent analysis of the merits of the petition. We also found in Mitchell that the record did not indicate any reliance on the State\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nWe find that Mitchell is controlling in the instant appeal. Here, the State\u2019s motion to dismiss was short, terse, and only claimed that Woods\u2019 petition was frivolous and patently without merit. Although the State did file a case in support of its motion, it did not make any oral arguments at the petition hearing. Our review of the record indicates that the trial judge\u2019s analysis was not influenced by the State\u2019s motion. We conclude that the trial judge ruled independently as a result of clear case law. The trial judge found Woods was not within the scope of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act because he was no longer imprisoned or on mandatory supervised relief. Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed Woods\u2019 petition as frivolous and patently without merit.\nFor the reasons indicated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Kankakee County.\nAffirmed.\nBARRY, P.J., and STOUDER, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE McCUSKEY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert Agostinelli, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.",
      "William Herzog, State\u2019s Attorney, of Kankakee (John X. Breslin and Robert M. Hansen, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVEN L. WOODS, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3-92-0280\nOpinion filed December 23, 1992.\nRobert Agostinelli, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nWilliam Herzog, State\u2019s Attorney, of Kankakee (John X. Breslin and Robert M. Hansen, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0559-01",
  "first_page_order": 579,
  "last_page_order": 581
}