People v. Lobdell

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except
in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
2022 IL App (3d) 190686-UOrder filed September 16, 2022
____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2022
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) of the 10th Judicial Circuit,
) Peoria County, Illinois.
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Appeal No. 3-19-0686
v. ) Circuit No. 12-CF-767
)
RICKY LEE LOBDELL, ) Honorable
) Paul P. Gilfillan,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE McDADE delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Daugherity and Peterson concurred in the judgment.
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: The circuit court committed error by summarily dismissing defendant’s
postconviction petition and not addressing all of defendant’s claims in its order.
¶2 Defendant, Ricky Lee Lobdell, appeals from the Peoria County circuit court’s summary
dismissal of his postconviction petition, arguing that the court entered an improper partial
summary dismissal. We reverse and remand.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 A grand jury indicted defendant on three counts of criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS
5/11-1.20(a)(1) (West 2012)). After a bench trial, the circuit court found defendant guilty of all
three counts on November 14, 2014. Defendant received a natural life sentence.
¶5 Defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the State’s use of prior crimes evidence
at trial was improper and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s
failure to file various motions on defendant’s behalf. This court affirmed the decision by the
circuit court to allow admission of prior crimes evidence but remanded the case for further
inquiry into the claims defendant made regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel. People v.
Lobdell, 2017 IL App (3d) 150074. The circuit court held a preliminary Krankel inquiry where
defendant claimed his trial counsel failed to file various motions, including a motion to quash his
arrest. Trial counsel stated that his decision not to file defendant’s requested motions was trial
strategy. The circuit court held there was no merit to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim
and that defendant had not met the requirements for a full Krankel hearing. This court affirmed
the circuit court’s decision and further held that even if defendant demonstrated ineffective
assistance, he could not demonstrate prejudice under the second prong of the Strickland test.
People v. Lobdell, 2019 IL App (3d) 180385.
¶6 On August 12, 2019, defendant filed a postconviction petition. The petition alleged that:
(1) the State knowingly allowed a detective to commit perjury concerning whether defendant
was arrested when he was questioned; (2) the State erred by failing to disclose a police report
documenting defendant’s arrest; (3) defendant’s prior conviction and victim statement was
improperly disclosed to the grand jury; (4) defense counsel was ineffective when he stipulated to
DNA evidence; (5) defense counsel coerced a jury waiver from defendant; (6) this court
wrongfully decided defendant’s prior Krankel and probable cause issues; (7) defense counsel
2
was ineffective for waiving a probable cause hearing; (8) defendant was not properly advised of
his Miranda rights when the police questioned him; and (9) defendant was not notified prior to
trial that his prior convictions would be used to give him an extended-term sentence.
¶7 The circuit court issued a written order that summarily dismissed the petition on October
29, 2019, finding it to be frivolous and patently without merit. In the order, the court stated that
“[u]pon a complete first stage review of these pleadings, the entire trial court record, the prior
appellate court history of this case, and pertinent case law, this court does FIND said PCP to be
frivolous and patently without merit, for one or more of the following reasons[.]” The court then
addressed the first five claims in defendant’s petition, finding them to be without merit. The
court did not discuss the remaining four claims. Nothing in the record provides additional insight
into the court’s reasoning.
¶8 II. ANALYSIS
¶9 On appeal, defendant contends that the circuit court erred in failing to enter a written
order that contained specific factual findings and legal conclusions for every claim in his petition
when dismissing it. Defendant argues that the failure to address the last four claims of his
petition indicates that the court failed to read the entire petition and therefore could not have
dismissed those claims.
¶ 10 We note that defendant does not argue the merits of his petition on appeal. Defendant
strictly argues his postconviction petition must be remanded to the circuit court for second-stage
proceedings due to the circuit court’s failure to dismiss all claims within 90 days of receipt of his
petition. Therefore, we only address the issue brought on appeal and not the merits of
defendant’s claims in his petition.
3
¶ 11 Section 122-2.1(a)(2) of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) directs the court to
provide a written order specifying its findings of fact or conclusions of law to facilitate appellate
review of the dismissal. 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2018). The statute provides that if “the
court determines the petition is frivolous or is patently without merit, it shall dismiss the petition
in a written order, specifying the findings of fact and conclusions of law it made in reaching its
decision.” Id. The use of the term “shall” does not refer to the contents of the court’s order of
dismissal itself, but rather to the court’s duty to dismiss a petition if it is frivolous or patently
without merit. People v. Cox, 136 Ill. App. 3d 623, 626 (1985). We review the summary
dismissal of a postconviction petition de novo. People v. Tate, 2012 IL 112214, ¶ 10.
¶ 12 The Act does not authorize partial dismissals. People v. Patton, 315 Ill. App. 3d 968, 975
(2000). The Act is “in essence, an all-or-nothing statute.” Id. at 974. If any claim in the petition
has merit, the circuit court must docket the case and appoint counsel who can review and amend
the petition if necessary. People v. Noel, 291 Ill. App. 3d 541, 544 (1997). Allowing a partial
dismissal hinders the judicial review process, as first stage dismissals are final and appealable
judgments. Rivera, 198 Ill. 2d at 372. “In the interest of judicial economy, and to avoid
piecemeal litigation, trial judges should refrain from entering partial summary dismissals.” Noel,
291 Ill. App. 3d at 544.
¶ 13 Although the circuit court’s reasons for dismissing a postconviction petition assist this
court in its decision, we review the circuit court’s judgment, not the reasons given for the
judgment. People v. Porter, 122 Ill. 2d 64, 82 (1988). A summary dismissal order essentially
denies all requests in defendant’s prayer for relief, and the reasons specified in the dismissal
order provide clarity for the parties and the reviewing court. People v. Harris, 224 Ill. 2d 115,
139 (2007). The provision of the statute calling for the circuit court to specify its findings of fact
4
and conclusions of law in the written dismissal order of a postconviction petition is directory
rather than mandatory. Cox, 136 Ill. App. 3d at 626. When entering a dismissal order, “the court
is not required to provide a written response to each and every specific claim that is presented
within a postconviction petition.” People v. Maclin, 2014 IL App (1st) 110342, ¶ 27. However,
the failure to include specifics in the written order does require reversal if the order is unclear.
Cox, 136 Ill. App. 3d at 626. In such a situation where no formal determination is issued on all
claims raised, the case should be remanded for further proceedings. People v. Edwards, 291 Ill.
App. 3d 476, 486 (1997).
¶ 14 Here, defendant argues that because the circuit court did not discuss each claim raised in
the postconviction petition in the dismissal order, this court cannot presume that the circuit court
dismissed the entire petition. We do not find so broad a conclusion warranted here; as indicated
in the preceding paragraph, the court is not required to respond in writing to every claim in the
petition. We do, however, find that the order is unclear, requiring reversal and remand. The trial
court’s written order expressly limited its grounds for dismissal to “one or more of the following
reasons.” Those reasons related to only five of the nine claims asserted by defendant; the order is
silent on the court’s assessment of defendant’s remaining four challenges. The court’s
explanation for dismissing the first five claims clearly indicates that it properly considered them
before determining they lacked merit. The same cannot be said for the last four claims. Because
the record before us provides neither evidence that the court assessed those four claims nor the
reasons, if any, for its putative rejection of them, we cannot assume a valid basis for their
dismissal. Accordingly, the case is remanded for further consideration and clarification.
¶ 15 III. CONCLUSION
5
¶ 16 The judgment of the circuit court of Peoria County is reversed and remanded with
directions to make formal determinations on the validity of defendant’s claims and for any
further proceedings that are deemed necessary.
¶ 17 Reversed and remanded.
6