{ "id": 5872727, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TESHOME CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Campbell", "decision_date": "2004-01-27", "docket_number": "No. 4-02-0046", "first_page": "810", "last_page": "814", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "345 Ill. App. 3d 810" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "344 Ill. App. 3d 599", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3778370 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "602", "parenthetical": "First District" }, { "page": "623" }, { "page": "621" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/344/0599-01" ] }, { "cite": "781 N.E.2d 395", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "398" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "338 Ill. App. 3d 262", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 25406 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "264" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/338/0262-01" ] }, { "cite": "794 N.E.2d 367", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "376", "parenthetical": "involving a successive postconviction petition" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "341 Ill. App. 3d 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5572423 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "536-37", "parenthetical": "involving a successive postconviction petition" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/341/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "205 Ill. 2d 594", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "788 N.E.2d 240", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "242" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "338 Ill. App. 3d 429", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 25442 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "431-32" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/338/0429-01" ] }, { "cite": "787 N.E.2d 324", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "326" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "337 Ill. App. 3d 992", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 894531 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "995" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/337/0992-01" ] }, { "cite": "782 N.E.2d 195", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "petition dismissed at first stage for failure to file separate affidavit stating that petitioner requested counsel to file appeal" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 Ill. 2d 59", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1442048 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "petition dismissed at first stage for failure to file separate affidavit stating that petitioner requested counsel to file appeal" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/202/0059-01" ] }, { "cite": "675 N.E.2d 102", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "106" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "174 Ill. 2d 410", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 223616 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "418" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/174/0410-01" ] }, { "cite": "789 N.E.2d 734", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "741" }, { "page": "741" }, { "page": "742" }, { "page": "751", "parenthetical": "Freeman, J., specially concurring" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 Ill. 2d 89", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1442050 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "99" }, { "page": "101" }, { "page": "102" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/202/0089-01" ] }, { "cite": "701 N.E.2d 1063", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1075" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 Ill. 2d 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 209962 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "388-89" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/183/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "773 N.E.2d 776", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "332 Ill. App. 3d 721", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1034050 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/332/0721-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 520, "char_count": 8513, "ocr_confidence": 0.754, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0559526303407025e-07, "percentile": 0.5553335348894858 }, "sha256": "d8977bf4a619193cc5a4244365fea9cb6a8e31597f3b1cc70b0b22253b77c8f1", "simhash": "1:bb82d6373278269f", "word_count": 1392 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:40:04.128176+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "KNECHT, EJ, and McCULLOUGH, J, concur." ], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TESHOME CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE COOK\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Teshome Campbell, appeals the December 2001 summary dismissal of his pro se postconviction petition on the grounds of res judicata and waiver. We reverse and remand.\nDefendant was convicted of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9\u2014 1(a)(2) (West 2002)) on October 15, 1998. The evidence at trial indicated that defendant sold fake drugs to the victim on a street corner during the early morning hours of December 25, 1997. When the victim returned to complain, a fight ensued between defendant and the victim, and five to nine of defendant\u2019s friends joined in. The victim, severely beaten, died a month later. The trial court sentenced defendant to 55 years in prison. Defendant\u2019s conviction was affirmed by this court, with one justice dissenting. People v. Campbell, 332 Ill. App. 3d 721, 773 N.E.2d 776 (2002).\nIn November 2001, while defendant\u2019s appeal was pending, he filed a petition for relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 1 through 122 \u2014 8 (West 2002)). The petition alleged that defendant had been deprived of effective assistance of counsel because his trial lawyer had failed to call a material witness, Juanchez Booker, and that numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct had produced an unfair trial. Booker had been sentenced to 20 years in prison for his involvement in the murder. Booker\u2019s affidavit, attached to the petition, claimed that he had been willing to testify that defendant was not involved in the beating, but defendant\u2019s lawyer refused to call him as a witness. Defendant\u2019s affidavit states that although he asked his attorney to call Booker as a witness, his attorney told him it would be \u201ca waste of time.\u201d\nIn December 2001, the circuit court summarily dismissed the petition. The court stated that the ineffective assistance claim should have been raised on direct appeal and was therefore waived. As to the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, defendant acknowledged they were identical to those made on direct appeal; in fact, most of the petition is simply a copy of the brief on appeal. The trial court found that these allegations were barred by res judicata, although the appeal had not then been decided. The court accordingly found that the petition was frivolous and patently without merit. Defendant appeals. We consider this issue de novo. People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 388-89, 701 N.E.2d 1063, 1075 (1998).\nAt the first stage under the Act, the circuit court, independently and without considering any argument by the State, determines whether the petition is \u201cfrivolous or is patently without merit.\u201d 725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 2.1(a)(2) (West 2000). \u201cThe court is *** foreclosed from engaging in any fact finding or any review of matters beyond the allegations of the petition.\u201d People v. Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d 89, 99, 789 N.E.2d 734, 741 (2002). However, the Act allows the trial court, at the summary dismissal stage, to \u201cexamine the court file of the proceeding in which the petitioner was convicted, any action taken by an appellate court in such proceeding and any transcripts of such proceeding.\u201d 725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 2.1(c) (West 2002). To survive dismissal at this stage, the petition must only present \u201cthe gist of a constitutional claim.\u201d People v. Gaultney, 174 Ill. 2d 410, 418, 675 N.E.2d 102, 106 (1996). If the petition survives the initial stage, the court may appoint counsel and counsel will have an opportunity to amend the petition. If the State does not file a motion to dismiss or if the motion is denied, the circuit court will proceed to the third stage and conduct an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the petition. 725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 1 through 122 \u2014 8 (West 2000).\nThe courts have significantly limited the scope of section 122\u2014 2.1(a)(2) summary dismissals in recent decisions. Summary dismissal may not be entered on the basis the petition is untimely. \u201cIf a petition is untimely that does not necessarily mean that the petition lacks merit.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d at 101, 789 N.E.2d at 741. A petition is not untimely unless petitioner is culpably negligent in filing his petition late, and that requires the court to make an assessment of petitioner\u2019s credibility. At the initial stage, the court should only determine whether the petition alleges constitutional deprivations. \u201cThe process at the summary review stage measures a petition\u2019s substantive virtue rather than its procedural compliance.\u201d Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d at 102, 789 N.E.2d at 742; cf. People v. Collins, 202 Ill. 2d 59, 782 N.E.2d 195 (2002) (petition dismissed at first stage for failure to file separate affidavit stating that petitioner requested counsel to file appeal).\nSubsequent decisions have held that a first-stage petition may not be dismissed based on res judicata or waiver. \u201cLike timeliness, the doctrines of waiver and res judicata do not address the question of whether a claim is frivolous or without merit; rather, they constitute procedural bars to a defendant\u2019s right to prevail on a claim, regardless of its substantive merit.\u201d People v. McGhee, 337 Ill. App. 3d 992, 995, 787 N.E.2d 324, 326 (2003); People v. Blair, 338 Ill. App. 3d 429, 431-32, 788 N.E.2d 240, 242 (2003), appeal allowed, 205 Ill. 2d 594 (2003); contra People v. Smith, 341 Ill. App. 3d 530, 536-37, 794 N.E.2d 367, 376 (2003) (involving a successive postconviction petition). \u201cLike timeliness, waiver is in the nature of an affirmative defense that the State may either raise, waive, or forfeit. Whether an issue is waived does not determine whether an issue has merit.\u201d People v. Stivers, 338 Ill. App. 3d 262, 264, 781 N.E.2d 395, 398 (2003).\nA different approach was taken in People v. Etherly, 344 Ill. App. 3d 599, 602 (2003) (First District), where it was held that res judicata can provide the basis for first-stage dismissal where the facts are undisputed regarding an issue that has in fact been raised and previously ruled upon. Again, the Act directs the trial court, at the summary dismissal stage, to consider \u201cany action taken by an appellate court in such proceeding.\u201d 725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 2.1(c) (West 2002). Res judicata questions regarding issues that merely could have been raised, however, are not properly resolved at the first stage, and strict application of res judicata and waiver will be relaxed where the alleged waiver stems from incompetency of counsel. Etherly, 344 Ill. App. 3d at 623.\nSummary dismissal was intended to achieve judicial economy by the prompt elimination of meritless petitions. Summary dismissals that regularly require the attention of the reviewing courts do not achieve judicial economy. \u201cThe steady flow of cases coming to this court with procedural quirks arising from the amendments leads me to believe that problems will continue to mount in this area.\u201d Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d at 119, 789 N.E.2d at 751 (Freeman, J., specially concurring). A trial court should not grant a summary dismissal unless it is clear that the petition is frivolous or without merit.\nApplying the above decisions, we conclude that the trial court\u2019s order must be reversed. The argument that the failure to call Booker was waived by the failure to raise it on direct appeal cannot be addressed at the summary dismissal stage. Even assuming that a case which is on appeal but has not been ruled upon can somehow constitute res judicata, summary dismissal on that basis was inappropriate here. The direct appeal did not consider whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Booker, although it did consider whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call other witnesses. Res judicata issues that have not been raised and ruled upon, issues which merely could have been raised, are not properly resolved at the first stage. Etherly, 344 Ill. App. 3d at 621.\nFor the reasons stated, we reverse the trial court\u2019s judgment and remand for further proceedings.\nReversed and remanded.\nKNECHT, EJ, and McCULLOUGH, J, concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE COOK" } ], "attorneys": [ "Daniel M. Kirwan and Nancy L. Vincent (argued), both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.", "John C. Piland, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and David E. Mannchen (argued), all 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. TESHOME CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4-02-0046\nArgued November 18, 2003.\nOpinion filed January 27, 2004.\nDaniel M. Kirwan and Nancy L. Vincent (argued), both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.\nJohn C. Piland, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and David E. Mannchen (argued), all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0810-01", "first_page_order": 830, "last_page_order": 834 }