{
  "id": 3600042,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHARD PATRICK OAKES, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Oakes",
  "decision_date": "2005-02-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201402\u20140171",
  "first_page": "748",
  "last_page": "750",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "355 Ill. App. 3d 748"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "791 N.E.2d 489",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 Ill. 2d 426",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        609690
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/204/0426-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "357 Ill. App. 3d 946",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        4135817
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "953"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/357/0946-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "672 N.E.2d 835",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 Ill. App. 3d 4",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        1260361
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/284/0004-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "655 N.E.2d 873",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "166 Ill. 2d 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        198905
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/166/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "815 N.E.2d 405",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 Ill. 2d 603",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "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": 321,
    "char_count": 5159,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.761,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5330875625009783e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28403933974529016
    },
    "sha256": "323481f99c9df54c40571e2ba21f4906de5e71cce1bc237256c9a7de05979de5",
    "simhash": "1:36b95fdf8bdeef8d",
    "word_count": 845
  },
  "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 PATRICK OAKES, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE SCHMIDT\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant Richard Patrick Oakes was charged with the 1986 murder of Helen Finley. In February 1988, he entered a fully negotiated plea of guilty and was sentenced to an 80-year extended term of imprisonment.\nOn August 16, 2000, defendant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief claiming that his sentence was imposed in violation of the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). Following appointment of counsel and consideration of the State\u2019s motion to dismiss, the court issued a memorandum opinion finding no legal authority for granting sentencing relief. Defendant filed a notice of appeal, and the trial court subsequently entered a formal order denying the amended petition. Finding that defendant\u2019s notice of appeal was premature, this court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. People v. Oakes, No. 3\u201402\u20140171 (2004) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).\nDefendant appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. In a supervisory order of October 6, 2004, the court denied defendant\u2019s petition for leave to appeal, but ordered this court to vacate its decision and decide the cause on its merits. People v. Oakes, 211 Ill. 2d 603, 815 N.E.2d 405 (2004).\nThe only issue defendant advanced in his appeal was that the cause should be remanded to the trial court for further postconviction proceedings because appointed counsel did not comply with Supreme Court Rule 651(c) (134 Ill. 2d R. 651(c)). In compliance with the supreme court\u2019s directions, we now vacate our dismissal order and affirm the trial court\u2019s judgment.\nRule 651(c) provides that, when a defendant appeals from the denial of a postconviction petition, the record must show that the defendant\u2019s attorney (1) consulted with the defendant, (2) examined the record of the trial proceedings, and (3) made any amendments to the pro se petition that were warranted. 134 Ill. 2d R. 651(c). The attorney may certify that these requirements have been met; however, his failure to do so is harmless if the record establishes that the attorney in fact complied with the rule (People v. Guest, 166 Ill. 2d 381, 655 N.E.2d 873 (1995)), or if the attorney\u2019s lapse could make no difference in the outcome of the cause (People v. Leach, 284 Ill. App. 3d 4, 672 N.E.2d 835 (1996)).\nIn Leach, the pro se postconviction petitioner sought sentencing relief from sentences imposed pursuant to a negotiated guilty plea. The trial court dismissed the petition. Leach appealed, arguing that his appointed counsel was ineffective for failing to comply with Rule 651(c). The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, noting that Leach had not requested the court to withdraw his plea and vacate judgment, nor had he shown that granting such relief was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. Leach, 284 Ill. App. 3d 4, 672 N.E.2d 835. The court further held that, where only sentencing relief is sought by a pro se postconviction petitioner, and such relief is unavailable because the petitioner has not sought to withdraw a guilty plea and vacate judgment, appointed counsel is not required to comply with Rule 651(c). Leach, 284 Ill. App. 3d 4, 672 N.E.2d 835.\nMore recently, the court in People v. Sargent, 357 Ill. App. 3d 946 (2005), ruled that failure to comply with Rule 651(c) was harmless where the only claim asserted in the defendant\u2019s pro se postconviction petition was that his sentence violated the rule of Apprendi. Retroactive application of Apprendi was foreclosed by People v. De La Paz, 204 Ill. 2d 426, 791 N.E.2d 489 (2003)). Therefore, the court noted, no amount of scouring the record, meetings with petitioner, or any amendment of the petition by appointed counsel could have saved the petition from dismissal, and a remand for Rule 651(c) compliance was not warranted. Sargent, 357 Ill. App. 3d at 953.\nThe record in this case fails to demonstrate that appointed counsel consulted with defendant as required by Rule 651(c). However, even assuming that no attorney-client consultation took place, a remand could not affect the outcome of the postconviction proceedings. Because defendant\u2019s sentence was imposed pursuant to a fully negotiated guilty plea, defendant could not obtain sentencing relief without moving to withdraw his plea and vacate judgment, which he did not do. See Leach, 284 Ill. App. 3d 4, 672 N.E.2d 835. Moreover, as in Sargent, defendant\u2019s only postconviction claim is barred by De La Paz. Under the circumstances, appointed counsel\u2019s failure to comply with Rule 651(c) was harmless.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Fulton County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nHOLDRIDGE and McDADE, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE SCHMIDT"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kenneth D. Brown, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.",
      "Edward Danner, State\u2019s Attorney, of Lewistown (Lawrence M. Bauer and Dawn D. Duffy, 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. RICHARD PATRICK OAKES, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201402\u20140171\nOpinion filed February 2, 2005.\nRehearing denied March 11, 2005.\nKenneth D. Brown, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nEdward Danner, State\u2019s Attorney, of Lewistown (Lawrence M. Bauer and Dawn D. Duffy, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0748-01",
  "first_page_order": 766,
  "last_page_order": 768
}