{ "id": 637050, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JARED L. GAINES, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Gaines", "decision_date": "2002-12-03", "docket_number": "No. 2 \u2014 01 \u2014 0564", "first_page": "292", "last_page": "297", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "335 Ill. App. 3d 292" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "213 Ill. App. 3d 992", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2605868 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "996" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/213/0992-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ill. App. 3d 289", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5410185 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "290-91" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/28/0289-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 Ill. 2d 410", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 223616 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "418" }, { "page": "419-20" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/174/0410-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 Ill. 2d 94", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 909162 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "107" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/169/0094-01" ] }, { "cite": "192 Ill. 2d 437", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 453266 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "460-61" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/192/0437-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 575, "char_count": 11463, "ocr_confidence": 0.76, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.6091974845965653e-07, "percentile": 0.8202765875539462 }, "sha256": "f199c367869601bb79a3681309d95e2bb52ff2378cf7e59a12e49ee61e052552", "simhash": "1:07aadc12772c8014", "word_count": 1857 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:10.004592+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JARED L. GAINES, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE KAPALA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a jury trial in the circuit court of Lake County, defendant, Jared L. Gaines, was found guilty of aggravated battery of a child (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 4.3(a) (West 1998)) and was sentenced to 28 years\u2019 imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. People v. Gaines, No. 2 \u2014 99 \u2014 1262 (2001) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). On April 19, 2001, one day before our decision in defendant\u2019s direct appeal was filed, defendant filed a timely pro se petition seeking relief from the judgment of conviction pursuant to section 2 \u2014 1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 1401 (West 2000). In his petition, defendant alleged that he and a codefendant, Cherrie Sargent, were tried simultaneously and that the jury hearing defendant\u2019s case heard evidence that Sargent had made statements that she and defendant had conspired to kill their child. In his petition defendant claimed that his conviction was a direct result of Sargent\u2019s statements. With the petition, defendant submitted an affidavit from Sargent averring that the statements were false and that she made them in response to coercion from police who threatened to take her child away if she did not make the statements. Defendant made an additional request for the appointment of counsel.\nOn April 20, 2001, the trial court appointed the Lake County public defender to represent defendant, advised the prosecutor that it would give defendant a hearing date, and set the petition for status.\nOn April 24, 2001, the State filed a \u201cmotion to reconsider.\u201d Although it addressed the merits of defendant\u2019s petition, the State\u2019s motion to reconsider did not expressly seek a dispositive ruling on the petition. Rather, the prayer for relief consisted of the following sentence fragment: \u201cWHEREFORE the People of the State of Illinois respectfully request this Court to reconsider any rulings made regarding the Petition filed by [defendant], and that the Court.\u201d In its motion the State claimed that in order to prevail on his petition defendant \u201cmust prove on the face of his petition that the \u2018newly discovered evidence\u2019 existed at the time of his trial.\u201d According to the State, \u201cCherrie Sargeant [szc] testified during her portion of this double jury trial and said testimony was different, but not substantially so, from her affidavit.\u201d In seeming contradiction, however, the State stated that \u201c[t]he testimony of Cherrie Sargeant [szc] was not available to [defendant] during the prior trial due to her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.\u201d The State further contended that the evidence would not have changed the result of defendant\u2019s trial.\nThe judge, who was different from the judge who had presided over defendant\u2019s trial, heard the State\u2019s motion the same day it was filed. An assistant public defender appeared on defendant\u2019s behalf, but he advised the court that he had received no prior notice of the motion and was unprepared to argue against it. The State, however, was allowed to proceed with its argument. While the State recognized that defendant filed his petition pursuant to section 2 \u2014 1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the State contended:\n\u201cIt\u2019s much like a post-conviction petition, but on the 2 \u2014 1401, the defendant must show on the face of his petition that evidence existed, No. 1, at the time of his trial. No. 2, that through no fault of his own, it was newly discovered. And No. 3, that it would change a result of his trial. If he does not show that, we don\u2019t go any further. We don\u2019t have any attorneys appointed; we don\u2019t order him to be brought to Lake County, and the State does not have to file a response to that petition.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nSimilarly, the State contended:\n\u201cNothing happens, and that includes the appointment of an attorney, until the Court finds the petitioner has sustained his burden of proof on the face of his complaint. Nothing. He has no right to be present; he does not get an attorney. No hearing is ordered; the State does not have to respond.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nHaving essentially taken the position that, as with a postconviction petition, the State was not required to respond to the section 2 \u2014 1401 petition until the trial court made an independent determination of the sufficiency of the petition, the State nonetheless proceeded with an argument on the merits of the petition contending, inter alia, that Sargent\u2019s statement \u201cisn\u2019t any different now than it was then, which shows that, No. 1, it\u2019s not newly discovered evidence.\u201d According to the State:\n\u201cShe said this to the jury last time. She said the police forced her to say what she said. The jury rejected that.\u201d\nThe State also indicated that defendant\u2019s direct appeal was still pending, although, in fact, our decision had been issued a few days earlier.\nBased on the State\u2019s representations about Sargent\u2019s testimony, the trial court ruled Sargent\u2019s statements were not newly discovered evidence. The court noted that the case was \u201cpending before the appellate court, where issues of this magnitude can be raised.\u201d The court also found that the petition was \u201cfrivolous at this juncture\u201d and terminated the appointment of counsel. In a written order, the trial court dismissed the petition on the basis that defendant \u201cfail[ed] to sustain his burden of proof.\u201d This appeal followed. We note that the record on appeal does not include a transcript of defendant\u2019s trial.\nDefendant argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition. Based on the substantial irregularities in the proceedings below, we agree. Our supreme court has described the application of section 2 \u2014 1401 to criminal convictions:\n\u201cSection 2 \u2014 1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2\u2014 1401 (West 1996)) provides a comprehensive statutory procedure by which final orders, judgments, and decrees may be vacated after 30 days from their entry. Although a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition is usually characterized as a civil remedy, its remedial powers extend to criminal cases. [Citation.] A section 2 \u2014 1401 petition for relief from a final judgment is the forum in a criminal case in which to correct all errors of fact occurring in the prosecution of a cause, unknown to the petitioner and court at the time judgment was entered, which, if then known, would have prevented its rendition. [Citations.]\u201d People v. Haynes, 192 Ill. 2d 437, 460-61 (2000).\nIn his petition, defendant asserted that newly discovered evidence that a codefendant made false statements under duress would have prevented defendant\u2019s conviction.\nThe State essentially advocated treating defendant\u2019s petition as a postconviction petition, and the trial court\u2019s dismissal order resembles a summary dismissal under section 122 \u2014 2.1(a)(2) of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 2.1(a)(2) (West 2000)). Section 2 \u2014 1401 and the Act both afford procedures for advancing a collateral challenge to a criminal conviction, but they are separate and distinct remedial provisions. Thus, for example, while only constitutional claims are cognizable in a postconviction proceeding (725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 1(a) (West 2000)), this limitation does not apply in proceedings under section 2 \u2014 1401 (see People v. Brown, 169 Ill. 2d 94, 107 (1995)).\nMore importantly, the particular statutory procedures applicable to petitions under the Act do not apply to section 2 \u2014 1401 proceedings. The Act instructs the trial court to independently examine a postconviction petition within 90 days after it is filed. 725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 2.1(a) (West 2000). \u201cAt this stage, the Act does not permit any further pleadings from the defendant or any motions or responsive pleadings from the State.\u201d People v. Gaultney, 174 Ill. 2d 410, 418 (1996). The court is directed to summarily dismiss the petition if the court finds that it is \u201cfrivolous or is patently without merit.\u201d 725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 2.1(a)(2) (West 2000). Otherwise, the petition is docketed for further proceedings of a traditional adversary nature. 725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 2.1(b) (West 2000). The Act provides that after the court\u2019s summary review counsel may be appointed for indigent defendants. 725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 4 (West 2000). In contrast, section 2 \u2014 1401 has no corresponding provision for independent examination by the trial court, nor is the trial court authorized to summarily dismiss a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition. Moreover, unlike proceedings under the Act, there is no statutory basis for the appointment of counsel in a section 2 \u2014 1401 proceeding.\nDuring the proceedings below, the State argued that defendant\u2019s petition was subject to summary dismissal. As noted, the summary dismissal procedure is applicable to postconviction petitions, not section 2 \u2014 1401 petitions. Moreover, even if this was a postconviction matter, summary dismissal would have been improper because the State participated in the summary review proceedings and the trial court clearly relied on the State\u2019s arguments. See Gaultney, 174 Ill. 2d at 419-20.\nA section 2 \u2014 1401 petition is akin to the complaint in a civil action, and to challenge the petition, the opponent must either move to dismiss it or file an answer. See Carroll & Nieman, Inc. v. Silverman, 28 Ill. App. 3d 289, 290-91 (1975). It is apparent from the court\u2019s order that the trial judge considered the State\u2019s \u201cmotion to reconsider\u201d as a motion to dismiss. As the written order stated, \u201cit is hereby ordered that the People\u2019s motion is granted, and the petitioner\u2019s 2 \u2014 1401 petition is dismissed.\u201d\nHere, the procedures followed below were seriously flawed. Defendant\u2019s attorney was not given adequate notice of the motion and did not have a meaningful opportunity to respond. This was particularly unfair in this case as the State based its argument, in part, on evidence at trial even though the judge who heard the State\u2019s motion had not presided over the trial and was not familiar with the evidence. We believe basic notions of fairness dictate that the defendant be afforded notice of, and an opportunity to respond to, any motion or responsive pleading by the State. Specifically, in this case, defendant should have had an opportunity to respond to the State\u2019s factual representations about what occurred at trial.\nOn appeal, the State largely ignores the procedural irregularities below, focusing instead on the merits of the petition. According to the State, defendant\u2019s petition does not warrant relief under section 2 \u2014 1401 because Cherrie Sargent\u2019s affidavit is essentially the same as her trial testimony. This argument is not cognizable in this court because Sargent\u2019s trial testimony is not part of the record on appeal. We will not consider facts outside the record. See Talbert & Mallon, EC. v. Stokes Towing Co., 213 Ill. App. 3d 992, 996 (1991).\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.\nReversed and remanded.\nBOWMAN and GROMETER, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE KAPALA" } ], "attorneys": [ "G. Joseph Weller and Steven E. Wiltgen, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.", "Michael J. Waller, State\u2019s Attorney, of Waukegan (Martin E Moltz, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), and Barry W Jacobs, of Chicago, for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JARED L. GAINES, Defendant-Appellant.\nSecond District\nNo. 2 \u2014 01 \u2014 0564\nOpinion filed December 3, 2002.\nG. Joseph Weller and Steven E. Wiltgen, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.\nMichael J. Waller, State\u2019s Attorney, of Waukegan (Martin E Moltz, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), and Barry W Jacobs, of Chicago, for the People." }, "file_name": "0292-01", "first_page_order": 310, "last_page_order": 315 }