People v. Hamilton ( 2020 )

NOTICE FILED
This order was filed under Supreme 2020 IL App (4th) 190401-U July 28, 2020
Court Rule 23 and may not be cited Carla Bender
as precedent by any party except in
the limited circumstances allowed
NOS. 4-19-0401, 4-19-0402 cons. th
4 District Appellate
under Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of
v. ) McLean County
CHARLES HAMILTON, ) Nos. 11CF989
Defendant-Appellant. ) 11TR27250
)
) Honorable
) John Casey Costigan,
) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Turner and Holder White concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding defendant’s various pro se contentions of
error were either meritless or forfeited.
¶2 Defendant, Charles Hamilton, appeals pro se from the trial court’s judgment
denying him leave to file a successive postconviction petition in both his felony case, Champaign
County case No. 11-CF-989 (docketed in this court as case No. 4-19-0401), and his traffic case,
Champaign County case No. 11-TR-27250 (docketed in this court as case No. 4-19-0402).
Defendant’s appeals have been consolidated for review. On appeal, defendant argues he should
have been granted (1) leave to file a successive postconviction petition, (2) the issuance of a
subpoena, and (3) a hearing on alleged inaccuracies in the trial transcripts. Defendant also
complains about the alleged refusal by the clerk of this court to send him the common law record.
We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 In November 2011, the State charged defendant in Champaign County case No.
11-TR-27250 with driving with a suspended license and in Champaign County case No.
11-CF-989 with unlawful possession of cannabis with intent to deliver (more than 5000 grams)
(720 ILCS 550/5(g) (West 2010)) (count I), unlawful possession of cannabis (more than 5000
grams) (720 ILCS 550/4(g) (West 2010)) (count II), and cannabis trafficking (more than 2500
grams) (720 ILCS 550/5.1(a) (West 2010)) (count III). All of the charges arose out of the same
underlying factual circumstances.
¶5 In March 2013, the trial court held a consolidated jury trial on defendant’s felony
and traffic cases. The State presented evidence showing, on November 6, 2011, a police officer
observed defendant driving in Illinois and initiated a traffic stop during which defendant presented
a suspended Florida driver’s license. A large amount of cannabis was then discovered during a
search of the auxiliary fuel tank of defendant’s vehicle. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury
found defendant guilty of each charged offense.
¶6 In April 2013, the trial court held a consolidated sentencing hearing. The trial court
merged counts I and II with count III and then sentenced defendant to 22 years in prison on count
III. With respect to the offense of driving with a suspended license, the court stated it would “order
court costs and a conviction” with “[n]o other penalty or sentence.” Defendant appealed from the
sentence imposed against him in his felony case.
¶7 In February 2015, this court affirmed defendant’s sentence in his felony case,
concluding he waived his contentions of error. People v. Hamilton, 2015 IL App (4th) 130612-U,
¶ 29. Defendant filed a petition for leave to appeal.
¶8 In March 2015, defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition in his felony case.
-2-
¶9 In May 2015, the supreme court denied defendant’s petition for leave to appeal but
issued a supervisory order directing this court to vacate our judgment and remand the matter for
the trial court to make a factual determination of whether a Georgia conviction at issue during
defendant’s sentencing hearing was attributable to defendant, and if not, whether the 22-year
prison sentence remained the appropriate sentence for defendant. People v. Hamilton, No. 119018
(Ill. May 27, 2015) (supervisory order).
¶ 10 In June 2015, the trial court summarily dismissed defendant’s postconviction
petition in his felony case. Defendant appealed.
¶ 11 In July 2015, this court vacated the judgment affirming defendant’s sentence in his
felony case and remanded the matter in accordance with the supreme court’s directions.
¶ 12 In March 2016, this court dismissed defendant’s appeal from the summary
dismissal of his postconviction petition in his felony case, finding defendant failed to comply with
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013). People v. Hamilton, 2016 IL App (4th)
150535-U, ¶ 14. Defendant filed a petition for leave to appeal. That same month, the trial court
held a hearing pursuant to this court’s remand and reduced defendant’s sentence in his felony case
to 19 years in prison. Defendant filed a pro se motion for reconsideration or reduction of sentence.
¶ 13 In May 2016, the supreme court denied defendant’s petition for leave to appeal
from this court’s dismissal of defendant’s appeal from the summary dismissal of his postconviction
petition in his felony case. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. Mar. 15, 2016).
¶ 14 In June 2016, the trial court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration or
reduction of sentence. Defendant appealed, citing both his felony and traffic cases.
¶ 15 In August 2016, this court, on defendant’s motion, entered an order dismissing
defendant’s appeal in his traffic case.
-3-
¶ 16 In February 2017, defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition in his traffic case.
¶ 17 In May 2017, this court dismissed defendant’s appeal from the sentence rendered
in his felony case following our remand, finding defendant failed to comply with Illinois Supreme
Court Rule 341 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013). People v. Hamilton, 2017 IL App (4th) 160464-U, ¶ 19. That
same month, the trial court summarily dismissed defendant’s postconviction petition in his traffic
case. Defendant appealed.
¶ 18 In September 2018, this court affirmed the summary dismissal of defendant’s
postconviction petition in his traffic case, finding defendant’s claims were frivolous and patently
without merit. People v. Hamilton, 2018 IL App (4th) 170398-U, ¶ 18. Defendant filed a petition
for leave to appeal.
¶ 19 In February 2019, defendant filed a pro se motion for leave to file a successive
postconviction petition in both his felony and traffic cases. Defendant asserted the bar to filing a
successive postconviction petition should be relaxed, in part, because “new evidence has come to
light that taints the entire judicial process in this case.” Defendant attached to his motion a
successive postconviction petition, a motion requesting the issuance of a subpoena, and a motion
requesting a hearing on alleged inaccuracies in the trial transcripts. In the successive
postconviction petition, defendant asserted, in part, a due process violation occurred when two
eleventh circuit judges issued rulings in his cases. Specifically, defendant alleged the judges should
not have issued rulings in the same case given their judicial misconduct. In support of that
allegation, defendant attached as an exhibit to the petition a July 24, 2014, news article which
discussed a misconduct complaint filed against the two judges.
¶ 20 In May 2019, the supreme court denied defendant’s petition for leave to appeal
from this court’s affirmance of the summary dismissal of his postconviction petition in his traffic
-4-
case. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. Mar. 15, 2016). That same month, the trial court denied defendant
leave to file a successive postconviction petition in his felony and traffic cases.
¶ 21 In June 2019, defendant filed a motion to reconsider. That same month, the trial
court denied defendant’s motion.
¶ 22 This appeal followed.
¶ 23 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 24 On appeal, defendant argues he should have been granted (1) leave to file a
successive postconviction petition, (2) the issuance of a subpoena, and (3) a hearing on alleged
inaccuracies in the trial transcripts. Defendant also complains about the alleged refusal by the clerk
of this court to send him the common law record. Related to the latter, defendant has also filed
supplemental motions requesting this court to take judicial notice that he received a copy of the
common law record after he had filed his initial brief in this case and that the record was “missing
1094 pages.”
¶ 25 A. Leave to File a Successive Postconviction Petition
¶ 26 Defendant argues he should have been granted leave to file a successive
postconviction petition because he satisfied the cause-and-prejudice test as it relates to his due
process claim. The State disagrees. We review the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for
leave to file a successive postconviction de novo. People v. Ames, 2019 IL App (4th) 170569, ¶ 11.
¶ 27 The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 to 122-7 (West 2018))
contemplates the filing of only one postconviction petition, and any claim not raised in the initial
petition is deemed forfeited. People v. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶ 24, 102 N.E.3d 114. One of the
circumstances where the statutory bar against successive postconviction petitions will be relaxed
is “when a [defendant] can establish ‘cause and prejudice’ for the failure to raise [a] claim earlier.”
-5-
People v. Edwards, 2012 IL 111711, ¶ 22, 969 N.E.2d 829. The cause-and-prejudice test is set
forth in section 122-1(f) of the Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2018)):
“Only one petition may be filed by a petitioner under this Article
without leave of the court. Leave of court may be granted only if a
petitioner demonstrates cause for his or her failure to bring the claim
in his or her initial post-conviction proceedings and prejudice results
from that failure. For purposes of this subsection (f): (1) a prisoner
shows cause by identifying an objective factor that impeded his or
her ability to raise a specific claim during his or her initial
post-conviction proceedings; and (2) a prisoner shows prejudice by
demonstrating that the claim not raised during his or her initial
post-conviction proceedings so infected the trial that the resulting
conviction or sentence violated due process.”
In evaluating a motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition, the court is conducting
“a preliminary screening to determine whether defendant’s pro se motion for leave to file a
successive postconviction petition adequately alleges facts demonstrating cause and prejudice.”
Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶ 24. The court is to ascertain “whether defendant has made a prima facie
showing of cause and prejudice.” Id.¶ 28 After examining defendant’s motion for leave to file a successive postconviction
petition and the accompanying successive postconviction petition and its attachments, we find
defendant has failed to make a prima facie showing of cause as it relates to his due process claim.
Defendant’s due process claim is based on the allegation two judges should not have ruled on
matters in his cases given their judicial misconduct. To support that allegation, defendant relies
-6-
upon a July 24, 2014, news article which discussed a misconduct complaint filed against the two
judges. That article, however, was available prior to the initial postconviction proceedings in both
defendant’s felony and traffic cases. Defendant’s failure to discover the published article sooner
cannot serve as cause to excuse his failure to raise the claim earlier. Based on the arguments
presented, we find no error in the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for leave to file a
successive postconviction petition.
¶ 29 B. The Issuance of a Subpoena and a Hearing on
Alleged Inaccuracies in the Trial Transcripts
¶ 30 Defendant argues he should have been granted the issuance of a subpoena and a
hearing on alleged inaccuracies in the trial transcripts. Defendant’s arguments, however, lack
citation to any supporting legal authority. Absent the citation to any supporting legal authority,
defendant has forfeited his arguments. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. May 25, 2018) (requiring
argument to “contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the
authorities ***”); Grant v. Dimas, 2019 IL App (1st) 180799, ¶ 34 (“Arguments unsupported by
citation to legal authority are considered as forfeited on appeal.”).
¶ 31 C. The Alleged Refusal to Send the Common Law Record
and Defendant’s Motions for Judicial Notice
¶ 32 Defendant argues the clerk of this court erred when she refused to send him the
common law record. Defendant’s argument, however, is refuted by the record. Defendant also
asks, in his supplemental motions, this court to take judicial notice that he received a copy of the
common law record after he had filed his initial brief and that the record was “missing 1094 pages.”
Other than his requests to take judicial notice, defendant does not request any other relief or explain
how he was prejudiced by the alleged lack of a complete record. Given the relief requested and the
lack of apparent prejudice, we deny defendant’s supplemental motions.
-7-
¶ 33 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 34 We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 35 Affirmed.
-8-