{ "id": 3599833, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHARD DYCHES, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Dyches", "decision_date": "2005-01-28", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201402\u20140900", "first_page": "225", "last_page": "230", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "355 Ill. App. 3d 225" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "199 Ill. 2d 286", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 58901 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "296" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/199/0286-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 Ill. 2d 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5461276 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "546, 548" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/209/0543-01" ] }, { "cite": "357 Ill. App. 3d 946", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4135817 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/357/0946-01" ] }, { "cite": "352 Ill. App. 3d 934", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5457906 ], "weight": 9, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "942" }, { "page": "944-45" }, { "page": "945" }, { "page": "946-47" }, { "page": "947-48" }, { "page": "948" }, { "page": "948-49", "parenthetical": "McBride, J., specially concurring" }, { "page": "945" }, { "page": "947-48" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/352/0934-01" ] }, { "cite": "349 Ill. App. 3d 35", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5434426 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "summary dismissal of mandamus petition proper where found to be frivolous and no prejudice was incurred by defendant" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/349/0035-01" ] }, { "cite": "351 Ill. App. 3d 972", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1083782 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "summary denial of habeas corpus petition proper where defendant did not raise any legal argument or cite legal authority to support his claim and no prejudice resulted from summary dismissal" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/351/0972-01" ] }, { "cite": "349 Ill. App. 3d 718", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5434890 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "720" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/349/0718-01" ] }, { "cite": "353 Ill. App. 3d 684", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3363877 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "687" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/353/0684-01" ] }, { "cite": "205 Ill. 2d 587", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "summary dismissal of mandamus petition proper" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "332 Ill. App. 3d 834", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1034113 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "839-43" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/332/0834-01" ] }, { "cite": "347 Ill. App. 3d 468", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3950581 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "472" }, { "page": "472-73" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/347/0468-01" ] }, { "cite": "208 Ill. 2d 552", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 Ill. App. 3d 175", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3738830 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "trial court may not summarily dismiss a mandamus complaint" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/345/0175-01" ] }, { "cite": "347 Ill. App. 3d 987", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3949814 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "trial court may not summarily deny a habeas corpus petition" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/347/0987-01" ] }, { "cite": "353 Ill. App. 3d 830", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3365031 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "summary dismissal of motion for declaratory judgment improper; harmless error did not apply" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/353/0830-01" ] }, { "cite": "335 Ill. App. 3d 292", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 637050 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "295-96" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/335/0292-01" ] }, { "cite": "347 Ill. App. 3d 995", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3949198 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1000" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/347/0995-01" ] }, { "cite": "208 Ill. 2d 549", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 Ill. App. 3d 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3739001 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "194" }, { "page": "196" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/345/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "352 Ill. App. 3d 442", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5457579 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "444" }, { "parenthetical": "because section 2 - 1401 petition was in substance a postconviction petition, summary dismissal was proper" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/352/0442-01" ] }, { "cite": "530 U.S. 466", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9413911 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/530/0466-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 535, "char_count": 10753, "ocr_confidence": 0.724, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.576839089601666e-07, "percentile": 0.679668582994607 }, "sha256": "d7bdc560f924e3069a5dac77c734f6346c35bcd817b9aafa3da47f1b9d19365c", "simhash": "1:2ea81bbe42d0ec45", "word_count": 1721 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:57:27.413698+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. RICHARD DYCHES, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE O\u2019MARA FROSSARD\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant Richard Dyches pled guilty to first degree murder, armed robbery, and aggravated kidnaping. The circuit court sentenced defendant to natural life in prison for first degree murder and concurrent 30-year prison terms for armed robbery and aggravated kidnaping. On appeal, defendant contends that the circuit court improperly summarily dismissed his pro se \u201cmotion for relief from judgment\u201d brought pursuant to section 2 \u2014 1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 1401 (West 2000)). We affirm.\nOn October 14, 1998, at the guilty plea hearing, the circuit court admonished defendant, in relevant part, that by pleading guilty he waived the right to a trial by jury to determine his guilt or innocence and his possible sentence. Defendant indicated that he understood. The court then accepted defendant\u2019s guilty plea to first degree murder, armed robbery, and aggravated kidnaping and sentenced him to natural life in prison and concurrent 30-year sentences, respectively.\nOn December 13, 2000, defendant filed a pro se \u201cmotion for relief from judgment,\u201d which he characterized as a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition. Defendant alleged in his petition that his sentence was unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). On January 12, 2001, the circuit court summarily dismissed defendant\u2019s petition. Whether the circuit court had the authority to summarily dismiss defendant\u2019s petition raises a question of law, and accordingly, our review is de novo. People v. Johnson, 352 Ill. App. 3d 442, 444 (2004).\nOn appeal, defendant contends that the circuit court improperly summarily dismissed his section 2 \u2014 1401 petition, relying primarily on People v. Pearson, 345 Ill. App. 3d 191 (2003), appeal allowed, 208 Ill. 2d 549 (2004). The districts of this court are in dispute as to whether a circuit court may summarily dismiss a defendant\u2019s section 2 \u2014 1401 petition. In Pearson, the Second District held that the circuit court commits reversible error by dismissing a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition without providing the defendant with notice and an opportunity to respond to the dismissal, and that a reviewing court cannot look beyond the error to assess the merits of the petition. Pearson, 345 Ill. App. 3d 191. The Second District has held the same in People v. Mescall, 347 Ill. App. 3d 995, 1000 (2004), and in People v. Gaines, 335 Ill. App. 3d 292, 295-96 (2002). See also People v. Keller, 353 Ill. App. 3d 830 (2004) (summary dismissal of motion for declaratory judgment improper; harmless error did not apply); People v. Winfrey, 347 Ill. App. 3d 987 (2004) (trial court may not summarily deny a habeas corpus petition); People v. Shellstrom, 345 Ill. App. 3d 175 (2003) (trial court may not summarily dismiss a mandamus complaint), appeal allowed, 208 Ill. 2d 552 (2004).\nPearson rejected the summary dismissal of the section 2 \u2014 1401 petition because the defendant received neither notice nor the opportunity to respond to the dismissal of his petition. The court held as follows:\n\u201cThe process of judicial review of a petition under the [Post-Conviction Hearing] Act \u2014 without comment by either party \u2014 is a significant and unusual departure from the adversary process. The legislature has mandated that departure in the specific context of the Act. We see no possible basis for importing such an unusual procedure into matters governed by the Code of Civil Procedure.\u201d Pearson, 345 Ill. App. 3d at 194.\nThe Pearson court further rejected the State\u2019s harmless error analysis:\n\u201cDespite the predictability of the ultimate dismissal of this petition, we think that the procedure by which the trial court dismissed it was simply too far removed from what defendant was entitled to for us to review the matter as if defendant had been given notice and an opportunity to answer.\u201d Pearson, 345 Ill. App. 3d at 196.\nOn the other hand, the Fourth District has held that a circuit court has the inherent authority to dismiss a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition sua sponte if it is frivolous and without merit. People v. Bramlett, 347 Ill. App. 3d 468, 472 (2004). The court in Bramlett analogized to post-conviction cases and concluded it was not unfair to dismiss a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition without notice and an opportunity to be heard because summary dismissal of postconviction petitions did not violate due process. Bramlett, 347 Ill. App. 3d at 472-73. See also Mason v. Snyder, 332 Ill. App. 3d 834, 839-43 (2002), appeal denied, 205 Ill. 2d 587 (2003) (summary dismissal of mandamus petition proper).\nIn the First District, the third and fourth divisions have held that summary dismissal of a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition is proper where the petition raises a pure question of law and the defendant incurs no prejudice from the dismissal based on the frivolous claims in the petition. People v. Schrader, 353 Ill. App. 3d 684, 687 (1st Dist., 3d Div. 2004); People v. Taylor, 349 Ill. App. 3d 718, 720 (1st Dist., 4th Div. 2004). The First District has allowed summary dismissal in similar situations in People v. Johnson, 352 Ill. App. 3d 442 (1st Dist., 1st Div. 2004) (because section 2 \u2014 1401 petition was in substance a postconviction petition, summary dismissal was proper), People v. Carroll, 351 Ill. App. 3d 972 (1st Dist., 6th Div. 2004) (summary denial of habeas corpus petition proper where defendant did not raise any legal argument or cite legal authority to support his claim and no prejudice resulted from summary dismissal), and Owens v. Snyder, 349 Ill. App. 3d 35 (1st Dist., 2d Div. 2004) (summary dismissal of mandamus petition proper where found to be frivolous and no prejudice was incurred by defendant).\nIn People v. Anderson, 352 Ill. App. 3d 934, 942 (2004), the First Division of the First District concurred with Pearson in finding that it is unfair to a defendant, when faced with the proposed dismissal of his section 2 \u2014 1401 petition, to be deprived of notice and an opportunity to respond. The Anderson decision articulated various reasons for prohibiting the use of the summary dismissal procedure, including the fact that notice and an opportunity to respond are fundamental principles of justice. Anderson, 352 Ill. App. 3d at 942. Anderson also noted that the legislature expressly provided for the summary dismissal of a postconviction petition in the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 1 et seq. (West 2000)), but did not do so in section 2 \u2014 1401. Anderson, 352 Ill. App. 3d at 944-45. The court emphasized that summary dismissal, which is a drastic procedure, should not be read into the procedures provided by section 2 \u2014 1401. Anderson, 352 Ill. App. 3d at 945. Anderson, however, then departed from Pearson and its progeny by holding that the harmless error analysis should still be applied where the defects are patently incurable. Anderson, 352 Ill. App. 3d at 946-47. The court reasoned that where the dismissal of the petition is inevitable and further proceedings in the circuit court would have little remedial effect and only delay dismissal, the summary dismissal should be affirmed based on harmless error. Anderson, 352 Ill. App. 3d at 947-48. The court explained that its application of the harmless error analysis was consistent with the general duty of the reviewing court to consider the record as a whole and ignore harmless errors. Anderson, 352 Ill. App. 3d at 948.\nNotably, two justices wrote separate, special concurrences in Anderson. Both concurred with the majority\u2019s decision in affirming the summary dismissal but disagreed with the finding that the circuit court erred in summarily dismissing the petition on procedural grounds. Anderson, 352 Ill. App. 3d at 948-49 (McBride, J., specially concurring), 949-52 (O\u2019Malley, EJ., specially concurring). It also should be noted that since Anderson was filed, the first division of the First District, in People v. Sargent, 357 Ill. App. 3d 946 (2005), reiterated Anderson\u2019s holding that summary dismissal, even if regarded as procedurally erroneous, remains subject to harmless error analysis, although Sargent addressed summary dismissal of a postconviction petition, not summary dismissal of a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition.\nWe follow the well-reasoned approach taken in Anderson regarding application of the harmless error analysis. We agree with Anderson that summary dismissal, which is a drastic procedure, should not be incorporated into the procedures provided by section 2 \u2014 1401. See Anderson, 352 Ill. App. 3d at 945. We hold, following Anderson, that harmless error analysis should be applied where defects in a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition are patently incurable.\nIn the instant case, the inherent defects in the section 2 \u2014 1401 petition are patently incurable. Here, defendant pled guilty and then filed a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition in which he alleged his sentence was unconstitutional under Apprendi. The circuit court summarily dismissed defendant\u2019s petition without comment. Our supreme court has held that a guilty plea waives any Apprendi-based claims. People v. Townsell, 209 Ill. 2d 543, 546, 548 (2004), citing People v. Jackson, 199 Ill. 2d 286, 296 (2002). We find in the present case that regardless of whether the circuit court erred in failing to provide defendant with notice and an opportunity to he heard, defendant could not have cured the inherent defects in his section 2 \u2014 1401 petition because he could not allege any facts that would circumvent our supreme court precedent and make his sentence subject to Apprendi. The dismissal of the petition was inevitable and further proceedings would only have delayed that result. See Anderson, 352 Ill. App. 3d at 947-48. Accordingly, any procedural error was harmless.\nFor the reasons previously discussed, we affirm the circuit court\u2019s judgment.\nAffirmed.\nMcNULTY and TULLY, JJ., concur.\nDefendant committed the crimes with codefendants Dennis Soto and Anthony Spencer. This court affirmed codefendant Soto\u2019s conviction and sentence. People v. Soto, No. 1\u201498\u20141069 (1999) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). This court affirmed as modified codefendant Spencer\u2019s conviction and sentence. People v. Spencer, No. 1\u201499-0155 (2000) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE O\u2019MARA FROSSARD" } ], "attorneys": [ "Michael J. Pelletier and Adolfo Mondragon, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Richard A. Devine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Manny Magence, and Amit Trivedi, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHARD DYCHES, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (6th Division)\nNo. 1\u201402\u20140900\nOpinion filed January 28, 2005.\nMichael J. Pelletier and Adolfo Mondragon, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.\nRichard A. Devine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Manny Magence, and Amit Trivedi, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0225-01", "first_page_order": 243, "last_page_order": 248 }