{ "id": 4275272, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THOMAS V. RYBURN, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Ryburn", "decision_date": "2008-02-07", "docket_number": "No. 4\u201404\u20140836", "first_page": "972", "last_page": "980", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "378 Ill. App. 3d 972" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "868 N.E.2d 382", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "383", "parenthetical": "where this court held that \"we will affirm the trial court on any basis supported by the record even if the trial court did not mention its reasons or reasoned incorrectly\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "372 Ill. App. 3d 1056", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4269718 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1058", "parenthetical": "where this court held that \"we will affirm the trial court on any basis supported by the record even if the trial court did not mention its reasons or reasoned incorrectly\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/372/1056-01" ] }, { "cite": "201 N.E.2d 109", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "111" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 Ill. 2d 170", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2832579 ], "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "173-74" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/31/0170-01" ] }, { "cite": "872 N.E.2d 140", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "141-42" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "374 Ill. App. 3d 820", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 7328852 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "821-22" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/374/0820-01" ] }, { "cite": "806 N.E.2d 1251", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1254-55" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "347 Ill. App. 3d 468", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3950581 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "472-73" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/347/0468-01" ] }, { "cite": "530 U.S. 466", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9413911 ], "weight": 6, "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/530/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "873 N.E.2d 932", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "nonprecedential supervisory order on denial of petition for leave to appeal" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "225 Ill. 2d 666", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "nonprecedential supervisory order on denial of petition for leave to appeal" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "871 N.E.2d 17", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 11, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "25-29" }, { "page": "26" }, { "page": "25-29" }, { "page": "25-27" }, { "page": "26" }, { "page": "25" }, { "page": "25-26" }, { "page": "25-27" }, { "page": "24" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 Ill. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3610490 ], "weight": 9, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "11-12" }, { "page": "13-14" }, { "page": "13-14" }, { "page": "13" }, { "page": "13" }, { "page": "13-14" }, { "page": "11" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/226/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "841 N.E.2d 1013", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Ryburn III" }, { "page": "1017" }, { "page": "1018" }, { "page": "1018-19" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "362 Ill. App. 3d 870", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4260772 ], "weight": 5, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Ryburn III" }, { "page": "875" }, { "page": "877" }, { "page": "877" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/362/0870-01" ] }, { "cite": "433 N.E.2d 253", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "256" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "89 Ill. 2d 273", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5493996 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "280" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/89/0273-01" ] }, { "cite": "798 N.E.2d 724", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "733", "parenthetical": "facts alleged were sufficient to raise a duty" }, { "page": "733" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "207 Ill. 2d 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 974987 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "348", "parenthetical": "facts alleged were sufficient to raise a duty" }, { "page": "348" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/207/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "684 N.E.2d 872", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "877" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "291 Ill. App. 3d 927", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 456128 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "932" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/291/0927-01" ] }, { "cite": "871 N.E.2d 17", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 9, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "23" }, { "page": "24" }, { "page": "26" }, { "page": "23" }, { "page": "24" }, { "page": "24" }, { "page": "25" }, { "page": "28" }, { "page": "24" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "226 Ill. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3610490 ], "weight": 9, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "8" }, { "page": "11" }, { "page": "14" }, { "page": "8" }, { "page": "10" }, { "page": "10" }, { "page": "13" }, { "page": "18" }, { "page": "10" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/226/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "841 N.E.2d 1013", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1018" }, { "page": "1016" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "362 Ill. App. 3d 870", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4260772 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "877" }, { "page": "874" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/362/0870-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 912, "char_count": 22145, "ocr_confidence": 0.782, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08, "percentile": 0.4719667053947933 }, "sha256": "fe5fdef0dab97aae1880cf1cfceceafbfe0773229c4dd192aec23b54919f67bd", "simhash": "1:b278551577649eee", "word_count": 3681 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:01:56.542688+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 V. RYBURN, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn July 2004, defendant, Thomas V. Ryburn, filed a petition under section 2 \u2014 1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 1401 (West 2002)), seeking to set aside his multiple October 1999 guilty pleas. In August 2004, the trial court sua sponte dismissed defendant\u2019s petition as frivolous and without merit. Defendant appealed, arguing, in part, that the trial court\u2019s sua sponte dismissal of his section 2 \u2014 1401 petition was error. Specifically, defendant argued that the trial court did not have the authority to take that action. This court disagreed and affirmed with one judge dissenting. People v. Ryburn, 362 Ill. App. 3d 870, 841 N.E.2d 1013 (2005) (Ryburn III).\nOn September 26, 2007, the Supreme Court of Illinois denied defendant\u2019s petition for leave to appeal but directed this court to vacate our judgment and to reconsider in light of People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1, 871 N.E.2d 17 (2007). People v. Ryburn, 225 Ill. 2d 666, 873 N.E.2d 932 (2007) (nonprecedential supervisory order on denial of petition for leave to appeal). In accordance with the supreme court\u2019s directions, we vacate our prior judgment and reconsider it in light of Vincent to determine whether a different result is warranted. After doing so, we again affirm.\nI. BACKGROUND\nIn October 1998, the State charged defendant with four counts each of aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, and aggravated criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 14(a)(1), 12\u2014 13(a)(1), 12 \u2014 16(d) (West 1998)).\nAt defendant\u2019s October 1999 guilty-plea hearing, defense counsel informed the trial court that defendant had agreed to plead guilty to three counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12\u2014 14(a)(1) (West 1998)). In exchange, the State agreed (1) to dismiss the remaining nine counts and other unrelated charges against defendant, (2) to recommend an aggregate sentence totaling no more than 60 years, and (3) that the court would not impose a fine on defendant.\nThe State provided the following factual basis for defendant\u2019s guilty pleas. On September 8, 1998, defendant appeared at the victim\u2019s residence and asked to use the telephone. The victim, who was acquainted with defendant, allowed him to come inside. After looking through a telephone book for a few minutes, defendant sneaked up behind the victim, held a knife to her throat, and repeatedly sexually assaulted her.\nThe trial court accepted the State\u2019s factual basis. The court also fully admonished defendant, outlined the terms of the plea agreement, and determined that he was knowingly and voluntarily pleading guilty. The court then accepted defendant\u2019s guilty pleas.\nIn November 1999, the trial court sentenced defendant to 20 years in prison on each count of aggravated criminal sexual assault, with those sentences to be served consecutively (730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 8\u20144(a) (West 1998)). The court also ordered that defendant pay the statutorily mandated $100 sexual-assault fine (730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 9\u20141.7(b)(1) (West 1998)). That same day, the circuit clerk imposed the statutorily mandated $25 fine under the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act (725 ILCS 240/10 (West 1998)).\nIn December 1999, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, alleging that he did not enter them knowingly and voluntarily. Following a February 2000 hearing, the trial court denied the motion.\nDefendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that (1) section 5 \u2014 8\u2014 4(a) of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 8\u20144(a) (West 1998)), requiring the imposition of consecutive sentences in his case, was unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000); and (2) the $25 fine imposed under the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act was improper because the circuit clerk, not the trial court, imposed it.\nThis court affirmed defendant\u2019s convictions and 60-year aggregate sentence, vacated the $25 Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act fine, and remanded for the trial court, not the circuit clerk, to impose that fine. People v. Ryburn, No. 4 \u2014 00\u20140117 (June 22, 2001) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23) (Ryburn I). In January 2002, the trial court entered an order imposing a $25 fine under the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act (725 ILCS 240/10 (West 1998)).\nIn June 2002, defendant pro se filed a petition for relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 1 through 122 \u2014 8 (West 2002)). The petition raised the following constitutional claims: (1) defendant received ineffective assistance of guilty-plea counsel in that counsel (a) failed to raise a speedy-trial claim, (b) failed to call certain alibi witnesses, (c) failed to present evidence to corroborate the purported alibi, (d) failed to obtain police records that allegedly showed that the victim had a motive to fabricate her complaint against defendant, and (e) stipulated that defendant was fit to plead guilty; and (2) he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel failed to raise on appeal the aforementioned issues. Later in June 2002, the trial court dismissed the petition as frivolous and patently without merit under section 122 \u2014 2.1(a)(2) of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 2.1(a)(2) (West 2002)). Defendant filed a notice of appeal, and the trial court appointed the office of the State Appellate Defender (OSAD) to serve as his counsel. In March 2003, OSAD moved to withdraw as counsel. (This court later granted OSAD\u2019s motion to withdraw as counsel on appeal of the trial court\u2019s dismissal of defendant\u2019s postconviction petition and affirmed that court\u2019s judgment. People v. Ryburn, No. 4 \u2014 02\u20140552 (July 29, 2003) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23) {Ryburn II).)\nAlso in March 2003, defendant filed a \u201cPetition for a New Trial,\u201d in which he alleged that he should not have to serve 85% of his 60-year aggregate prison sentence because the sentence was based on \u201ctainted/perjuried [sic]\u201d testimony in an unrelated case. Later that month, the trial court dismissed the petition, upon determining that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider it.\nIn April 2003, defendant filed a motion entitled \u201cPetition to Chief Administrative Judge for Rehearing En Banc with Substitution of Judge and Conduct Review of Judges.\u201d Later that same month, the trial court dismissed the petition as frivolous, upon finding, inter alia, that defendant had been \u201cengaging in a pattern of filing frivolous pleadings without factual or legal merit[,] all with the apparent end of obtaining relief from his convictions and sentences in [McLean County case No. 98 \u2014 CF\u20141062].\u201d\nIn July 2004, defendant filed the section 2 \u2014 1401 petition at issue (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 1401 (West 2002)), seeking to set aside his October 1999 guilty pleas on the following grounds: (1) he received ineffective assistance of guilty-plea counsel in that counsel (a) \u201cfraudulently concealed [the trial court\u2019s] violation of the guilty plea\u201d agreement when the court imposed fines and ordered that defendant pay restitution, (b) violated several rules of professional conduct, (c) did not consult with him about what issues he wanted to raise in his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, (d) filed a Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (188 Ill. 2d R. 604(d)) certificate that was \u201csuspect,\u201d (e) \u201cfraudulently concealed\u201d defendant\u2019s medical records, mental-health history, and certain exculpatory evidence, (f) failed to argue that his consecutive sentences were improper, and (g) failed to argue defendant\u2019s \u201clegal innocents [sic]\u201d in his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas; (2) the trial court violated several supreme court rules by failing to provide him with a free transcript of proceedings; and (3) his consecutive sentences violated Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 120 S. Ct. 2348.\nIn August 2004, the trial court sua sponte dismissed defendant\u2019s section 2 \u2014 1401 petition, upon finding that it was frivolous and without merit. Defendant appealed, and as earlier stated, this court affirmed. Ryburn III, 362 Ill. App. 3d 870, 841 N.E.2d 1013.\nIn that opinion, we rejected defendant\u2019s argument that his guilty pleas were void based on the trial court\u2019s imposition of $125 in fines, deeming that argument \u201cridiculous.\u201d Rybum III, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 875, 841 N.E.2d at 1017. Citing People v. Bramlett, 347 Ill. App. 3d 468, 472-73, 806 N.E.2d 1251, 1254-55 (2004), we also concluded that the trial court possessed the authority sua sponte to dismiss defendant\u2019s section 2 \u2014 1401 petition if it finds that the petition is frivolous and without merit.\nThis court also noted that defendant\u2019s claim on appeal that his guilty pleas were void not only had no merit, but also that he failed to raise it in the section 2 \u2014 1401 petition that was before us on appeal. Ryburn III, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 877, 841 N.E.2d at 1018.\nIn response to defendant\u2019s contention that he was not a \u201cvexatious or frivolous litigator,\u201d this court wrote the following:\n\u201cIn addition, defendant\u2019s assertion that he is not a vexatious litigant who inappropriately burdens the court system with non-meritorious litigation is belied by (1) the sheer number of pleadings he has filed since his October 1999 guilty pleas in this case and (2) the trial court\u2019s explicit finding in its April 2003 order that defendant had been \u2018engaging in a pattern of filing frivolous pleadings without factual or legal merit[,] all with the apparent end of obtaining relief from his convictions and sentences in [McLean County case No. 98 \u2014 CF\u20141062].\u2019 Defendant continued his practice of filing frivolous pleadings when he filed his July 2004 section 2 \u2014 1401 petition now before us. Indeed, this defendant could be the \u2018poster boy\u2019 for why trial courts should have the inherent authority to sua sponte dismiss section 2 \u2014 1401 petitions that are frivolous and without merit. Denying trial courts this authority would require them to squander scarce judicial resources. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court appropriately exercised its authority by sua sponte dismissing defendant\u2019s petition.\u201d Rybum III, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 877, 841 N.E.2d at 1018-19.\nAs earlier stated, the Supreme Court of Illinois denied defendant\u2019s petition for leave to appeal in Rybum III but directed this court to vacate our judgment and to reconsider in light of People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1, 871 N.E.2d 17 (2007). That reconsideration follows.\nII. THE SUPREME COURT\u2019S DECISION IN VINCENT\nThe Third District Appellate Court recently had occasion to analyze the decision of the supreme court in Vincent. In People v. Mal- loy, 374 Ill. App. 3d 820, 821-22, 872 N.E.2d 140, 141-42 (2007), the Third District wrote the following:\n\u201cIn the recent case of People v. Vincent, our supreme court stated that a trial court\u2019s dismissal of a petition for relief from judgment on its own motion may properly be characterized as either a grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the State or a dismissal of the petition with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action. People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1, 11-12[, 871 N.E.2d 17, 25-29] (2007). Such a dismissal is subject to de novo review on appeal. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at [14, 871 N.E.2d at 26]. Thus, we will apply a de novo standard of review to the dismissal in the present case. See Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at [15-19, 871 N.E.2d at 25-29].\nTurning to the merits of defendant\u2019s argument, defendant first asserts that the trial court may not dismiss a petition for relief from judgment, on its own motion, without first providing defendant with notice and an opportunity to be heard. Our supreme court addressed that exact issue in Vincent and ruled to the contrary. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 13-14[, 871 N.E.2d at 25-27], The trial court\u2019s authority to take such action comes from the Illinois pleading requirements and from well-settled principles of civil practice and procedure. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 13-14[, 871 N.E.2d at 26]. *** Our supreme court has noted that the jurisdiction of the lower courts to restrain the maintenance of vexatious or harassing litigation is well established. People ex rel. Lake County Bar Ass\u2019n v. Circuit Court, 31 Ill. 2d 170, 173-74, 201 N.E.2d 109, 111 (1964). In reaffirming the trial court\u2019s authority to dismiss suit under civil practice principles, our supreme court in Vincent pointed out that adequate safeguards exist to protect a litigant from an erroneous dismissal. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 13[, 871 N.E.2d at 25]. A litigant may file a motion for rehearing or an appeal or both. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 13[, 871 N.E.2d at 25-26].\nBased upon the supreme court\u2019s ruling in Vincent, the law is now settled in Illinois that the trial court may dismiss a petition for relief from judgment on its own motion without first providing the defendant with notice and an opportunity to be heard. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 13-14[, 871 N.E.2d at 25-27].\u201d\nWe agree with the Third District\u2019s analysis and further adhere to the views we expressed in Ryburn III, except, of course, to the extent that those views conflict with Vincent. Specifically, we acknowledge, as our dissenting colleague points out, that the supreme court disagreed with our statement that trial courts possess the authority to summarily dismiss section 2 \u2014 1401 petitions that are frivolous and without merit, noting that \u201csummary dismissals\u201d are not recognized under the Code of Civil Procedure. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 11, 871 N.E.2d at 24.\nThis acknowledgment, however, does not change our ultimate conclusion. Consistent with the standard set forth by the supreme court for reviewing a trial court\u2019s sua sponte dismissal of a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition, we conclude that the judgment of the trial court is correct because the allegations of defendant\u2019s petition wholly fail to state a cause of action. As a court of review, we review judgments, not the reasons therefor. See People v. DeBerry, 372 Ill. App. 3d 1056, 1058, 868 N.E.2d 382, 383 (2007) (where this court held that \u201cwe will affirm the trial court on any basis supported by the record even if the trial court did not mention its reasons or reasoned incorrectly\u201d). Accordingly, even though (as the supreme court held in Vincent) the reasons underlying the trial court\u2019s judgment in this case were flawed, we can \u2014 and will \u2014 affirm if the record otherwise shows that judgment to be soundly based. That rule clearly applies here.\nThe primary focus of the dissent appears to be its disagreement with the decision of the supreme court that the trial court should possess the authority to sua sponte dismiss a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition. Nonetheless, Vincent resolves that issue, and our job on this appeal is to apply supreme court doctrine as set forth in Vincent.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court\u2019s judgment.\nAffirmed.\nMYERSCOUGH, J., concurs.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN" }, { "text": "JUSTICE COOK,\ndissenting:\nI respectfully dissent and would reverse and remand.\nIs there any difference between summary dismissal of a petition as \u201cfrivolous or patently without merit\u201d under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act and dismissal for failure to state a cause of action under section 2 \u2014 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure? In civil cases, will we now routinely see cases summarily dismissed as frivolous and without merit? I suggest that section 2 \u2014 615 dismissals are much more limited than \u201csummary dismissals,\u201d and that the supreme court in Vincent did not simply engage in semantics, allowing \u201csummary dismissals\u201d just under another name.\nIn Vincent, the supreme court rejected the argument that special rules should be applied in ruling on section 2 \u2014 1401 petitions in criminal cases. \u201cThis court has consistently held that proceedings under section 2 \u2014 1401 are subject to the usual rules of civil practice.\u201d Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 8, 871 N.E.2d at 23. In particular, the court rejected the argument that a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition could be dismissed under the provisions of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, which allows summary dismissal on the basis that \u201cthe petition is frivolous or is patently without merit.\u201d 725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 2.1(a)(2) (West 2004). \u201c \u2018Summary dismissals\u2019 are not recognized under the Code of Civil Procedure in general or section 2 \u2014 1401 in particular.\u201d Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 11, 871 N.E.2d at 24. Exceptions should not be created \u201cbased solely on the criminal-defendant status of the petitioner [citation] or on arbitrary notions of docket control [citation].\u201d Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 14, 871 N.E.2d at 26.\nUnder civil practice rules, a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition may be challenged by a motion to dismiss for its failure to state a cause of action. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 8, 871 N.E.2d at 23. Judgment on the pleadings may also be appropriate. See 735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 615(e) (West 2004) (\u201cAny party may seasonably move for judgment on the pleadings\u201d). Judgment on the pleadings is often entered in favor of a plaintiff if the answer admits or fails to adequately deny any essential allegation of the plaintiffs cause of action. 3 R Michael, Illinois Practice \u00a727.2, at 493-94 (1989) (Civil Procedure Before Trial). \u201c[J]udgment on the pleadings in favor of a defendant who has never filed an answer *** is the \u2018functional equivalent of dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.\u2019 \u201d Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 10, 871 N.E.2d at 24, quoting Mitchell v. Norman James Construction Co., 291 Ill. App. 3d 927, 932, 684 N.E.2d 872, 877 (1997). \u201cCase law has long recognized that such a judgment, whether it be characterized as a judgment on the pleadings or a dismissal, can be entered by the court notwithstanding the absence of a responsive pleading.\u201d Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 10, 871 N.E.2d at 24; cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) (28 U.S.C. app. Fed. R Civ. P 12(c) (2000)) (after the pleadings are closed \u2014 but early enough not to delay trial \u2014 a party may move for judgment on the pleadings).\n\u201cA motion for judgment on the pleadings is sometimes used instead of the proper motion in order to attempt to give the determination the finality that a judgment implies.\u201d 3 R Michael, Illinois Practice \u00a727.2, at 495 (1989) (Civil Procedure Before Trial). \u201cThe difficulty is that there appear to be cases where the use of the motion for judgment on the pleadings, instead of a motion to strike and dismiss, has resulted in the loss of the plaintiffs right to seek leave to amend after the complaint was held to be defective.\u201d 3 R. Michael, Illinois Practice \u00a727.2, at 496 (1989) (Civil Procedure Before Trial).\nVincent held that a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition may be dismissed sua sponte, in both civil and criminal cases, and that adequate procedural safeguards exist to prevent erroneous sua sponte terminations. A section 2 \u2014 1401 petitioner whose petition has been disposed of by the court sua sponte may file a motion for rehearing and may have the right to amend the petition. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 13, 871 N.E.2d at 25. The decision of the trial court must be reviewed de novo in the appellate court. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 18, 871 N.E.2d at 28.\nMotions to dismiss with prejudice under section 2 \u2014 615 are granted cautiously. In civil cases, a pleading need only assert a legally recognized cause of action and plead facts that bring the particular case within that cause of action. A motion to dismiss is granted on the pleadings, not on the underlying facts. The question presented by a section 2 \u2014 615 motion is whether the allegations of the complaint, when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, are sufficient to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Chandler v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 331, 348, 798 N.E.2d 724, 733 (2003) (facts alleged were sufficient to raise a duty). No complaint is bad in substance which reasonably informs the defendant of the nature of the claim that he or she is called upon to meet. Chandler, 207 Ill. 2d at 348, 798 N.E.2d at 733. \u201c[A] motion to dismiss should not be granted unless it clearly appears that no set of facts could ever be proved that would entitle the plaintiff[s] to recover.\u201d Ostendorf v. International Harvester Co., 89 Ill. 2d 273, 280, 433 N.E.2d 253, 256 (1982).\nThe trial court here entered a three-page written order, finding that defendant\u2019s claims were totally lacking in merit. Ryburn III, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 877, 841 N.E.2d at 1018. The trial court, however, did not determine that the allegations of the section 2 \u2014 1401 petition were insufficient, as a matter of law, to state a claim. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 10, 871 N.E.2d at 24. Instead, the trial court applied the summary dismissal approach of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, finding that the petition was \u201cfrivolous and without merit.\u201d Ryburn III, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 874, 841 N.E.2d at 1016; 725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 2.1(a)(2) (West 2004). The majority does not attempt to justify the dismissal on the basis that the allegations here could never state a legal basis for the relief requested. The allegations of ineffective assistance in failing to object to the imposition of fines, failure to consult with defendant, and failure to argue that consecutive sentences were improper at least appear to allege a cause of action, however weak on the merits. Defendant was unaware that he was entitled to file a motion for rehearing or a motion to amend his petition.\nWhatever we do in this case can be done in any civil case. It is important that we carefully follow the rules of civil procedure. We should not allow special rules, developed to address a problem in the criminal law system, to affect the handling of civil cases.", "type": "dissent", "author": "JUSTICE COOK," } ], "attorneys": [ "Charles M. Schiedel and Allen H. Andrews, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.", "William A. Yoder, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and James C. Majors, 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. THOMAS V. RYBURN, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201404\u20140836\nOpinion filed February 7, 2008.\nCOOK, J., dissenting.\nCharles M. Schiedel and Allen H. Andrews, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nWilliam A. Yoder, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and James C. Majors, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0972-01", "first_page_order": 988, "last_page_order": 996 }