{
  "id": 4273361,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THOMAS J. POWERS, Defendant-Appellant; THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THOMAS J. POWERS, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Powers",
  "decision_date": "2007-09-24",
  "docket_number": "Nos. 2-06-1246, 2-07-0093 cons.",
  "first_page": "63",
  "last_page": "66",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "376 Ill. App. 3d 63"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "357 Ill. App. 3d 806",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        4135363
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "815"
        },
        {
          "page": "815"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/357/0806-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 Ill. App. 3d 872",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3749273
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "875-76"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/356/0872-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 360,
    "char_count": 7299,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.774,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.14331240933351713
    },
    "sha256": "438c6dfb29baaf870480b7c66f8ba1f9a4f4772ff9ba26f5279b247fb4e34b6d",
    "simhash": "1:b22bd4f652662fc3",
    "word_count": 1192
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:46:29.545992+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. THOMAS J. POWERS, Defendant-Appellant. \u2014 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THOMAS J. POWERS, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE McLAREN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a jury trial, defendant, Thomas Powers, was convicted of one count of attempt (aggravated criminal sexual assault) (720 ILCS 5/8 \u2014 4(a) (West 2000)) and sentenced to 25 years in prison. This court affirmed the conviction in People v. Powers, No. 2 \u2014 01\u20140496 (2003) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). Defendant then filed various collateral petitions, including petitions for post-conviction relief, for relief from judgment, and for habeas corpus.\nOn October 16, 2004, the trial court determined that defendant\u2019s postconviction petition raised a meritorious constitutional claim and was not frivolous. The court then appointed attorney David Brown to represent defendant. On May 1, 2006, defendant filed a pro se post-conviction petition, alleging that Brown had not consulted with him on his postconviction claims and raising allegations of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. An identical petition, but bearing Brown\u2019s signature, was filed on July 10, 2006. On that same date, defendant filed several more pro se pleadings, including a \u201cSupplemental Pro-se Post Conviction Petition,\u201d which raised allegations of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The trial court ordered the State to answer the allegations in the petitions.\nThe State filed a motion to dismiss the petition filed by Brown, which motion the trial court denied on September 13, 2006. However, the State filed a motion to reconsider, which the court granted on November 21. On December 6, Brown filed a notice of appeal, and the court appointed the office of the State Appellate Defender. That notice of appeal has given rise to appeal No. 2 \u2014 06\u20141246.\nOn December 7, defendant filed a pro se motion to reconsider the November 21 order granting the State\u2019s motion to dismiss. In this motion, defendant argued, among other things, that Brown never formally answered the State\u2019s motion to dismiss and failed to include various exhibits and affidavits with his July 10 filing of the postconviction petition. On December 15, defendant wrote a letter to the circuit court clerk of Winnebago County, stating that the motion to reconsider had to be heard \u201cprior to\u201d the notice of appeal. Defendant also filed a motion to withdraw the notice of appeal pending a decision on the motion to reconsider. The trial court denied the motion to withdraw, concluding that defendant \u201chad no authority\u201d to file pro se pleadings, since counsel had been appointed for defendant, and that the trial court had no jurisdiction, since Brown had already filed a notice of appeal. Appeal No. 2 \u2014 07\u20140093 followed. We now consolidate the appeals.\nDefendant now contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw the December 6, 2006, notice of appeal that gave rise to appeal No. 2 \u2014 06\u20141246. We agree.\nSupreme Court Rule 606(b) provides in part:\n\u201cExcept as provided in Rule 604(d), the notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the circuit court within 30 days after the entry of the final judgment appealed from or if a motion directed against the judgment is timely filed, within 30 days after the entry of the order disposing of the motion. When a timely posttrial or postsentencing motion directed against the judgment has been filed by counsel or by defendant, if not represented by counsel, any notice of appeal filed before the entry of the order disposing of all pending postjudgment motions shall have no effect and shall be stricken by the trial court. *** This rule applies whether the timely postjudgment motion was filed before or after the date on which the notice of appeal was filed.\u201d 210 Ill. 2d R. 606(b).\nThis rule applies to appeals involving postconviction petitions. See People v. Dominguez, 356 Ill. App. 3d 872, 875-76 (2005).\nThe State argues that Rule 606(b) does not apply in this situation because defendant was represented by counsel. Rule 606(b) speaks only to pro se motions filed by a defendant \u201cnot represented by counsel.\u201d The State argues that \u201chybrid\u201d representation is not encouraged or allowed. In general, a defendant who is represented by counsel has no authority to file pro se motions, and a court should not consider such motions. People v. Serio, 357 Ill. App. 3d 806, 815 (2005). However, an exception to this rule exists: represented defendants are allowed to raise pro se claims of ineffective assistance of counsel if they include supporting facts and specific claims. Serio, 357 Ill. App. 3d at 815.\nHere, in his December 7 pro se motion to reconsider, defendant alleged that Brown did not formally answer the State\u2019s motion to dismiss and failed to include various exhibits and affidavits with his July 10 filing of the postconviction petition. Clearly, the failure to respond to a motion to dismiss that was ultimately granted qualifies as a specific claim of unreasonable assistance of postconviction counsel. The failure to attach the exhibits and affidavits (which defendant attached to his motion to reconsider) is also a specific claim of unreasonable assistance of postconviction counsel. We must conclude that defendant\u2019s pro se motion to reconsider was a timely and appropriate motion directed against the trial court\u2019s dismissal of his postconviction petition. Thus, the filing of this motion negated the notice of appeal filed on December 6. The trial court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion to withdraw the notice of appeal and failing to address defendant\u2019s motion to reconsider.\nWe note that Supreme Court Rule 309, which applies to criminal appeals, provides in relevant part:\n\u201cBefore the record on appeal is filed in the reviewing court, the trial court may dismiss the appeal of any party (1) on motion of that party or (2) on stipulation of the parties.\u201d 134 Ill. 2d R. 309.\nThe State points out, correctly, that Supreme Court Rule 309 is not mandatory, in that a court \u201cmay\u201d dismiss an appeal. However, we conclude that any party, whether represented by counsel or not, has the power to withdraw an appeal by any means. This is especially true where, as here, unreasonable assistance of postconviction counsel is part of the defendant\u2019s claim. The right to appeal, or not to appeal, belongs to the defendant, not his attorney. We cannot conclude that a defendant must proceed with an appeal simply because counsel has already filed a notice of appeal.\nFor these reasons, in appeal No. 2 \u2014 07\u20140093, the judgment of the circuit court of Winnebago County is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. In light of our ruling herein, appeal No. 2 \u2014 06\u20141246 is premature. We therefore dismiss appeal No. 2 \u2014 06\u20141246.\nNo. 2 \u2014 06\u20141246, Appeal dismissed.\nNo. 2 \u2014 07\u20140093, Reversed and remanded.\nHUTCHINSON and CALLUM, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE McLAREN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas A. Lilien, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.",
      "Philip J. Nicolosi, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford (Lawrence M. Bauer, 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. THOMAS J. POWERS, Defendant-Appellant. \u2014 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THOMAS J. POWERS, Defendant-Appellant.\nSecond District\nNos. 2 \u2014 06\u20141246, 2 \u2014 07\u20140093 cons.\nOpinion filed September 24, 2007.\nThomas A. Lilien, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.\nPhilip J. Nicolosi, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rockford (Lawrence M. Bauer, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0063-01",
  "first_page_order": 81,
  "last_page_order": 84
}