People v. Brandon

2025 IL App (4th) 241421-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: June 26, 2025
• Docket: 4-24-1421
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE 2025 IL App (4th) 241421-U This Order was filed under FILED Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NO. 4-24-1421 June 26, 2025 not precedent except in the Carla Bender limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate IN THE APPELLATE COURT under Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Adams County DWAYNE BRANDON, ) No. 17CF772 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Talmadge “Tad” Brenner, ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Harris and Justice Cavanagh concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The appellate court (1) vacated the trial court’s judgment, finding the court erred by failing to admonish defendant pursuant to People v. Shellstrom, 216 Ill. 2d 45 (2005), before recharacterizing defendant’s pro se motion as a postconviction petition and (2) remanded the cause for compliance with the Shellstrom admonitions.

¶2 In September 2024, following his convictions of attempted first degree murder

and aggravated domestic battery, defendant, Dwayne Brandon, filed a pro se motion to “forward

discovery/common law record.” The trial court recharacterized the motion as a postconviction

petition, then dismissed it after finding it frivolous and patently without merit.

¶3 Defendant appeals, arguing the trial court erred in recharacterizing his pro se

motion without first providing him the admonitions required under People v. Shellstrom, 216 Ill.

2d 45 (2005). We agree and vacate the dismissal and remand for compliance with the Shellstrom

admonitions. ¶4 I. BACKGROUND

¶5 In January 2018, a jury found defendant guilty of attempted first degree murder

(720 ILCS 5/8-4, 9-1(a)(1) (2016)) and aggravated domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.3(a), 12-

3.2(a)(1) (West 2016)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 20 years’ imprisonment.

Defendant appealed, and this court affirmed his conviction and sentence in July 2024. People v.

Brandon, 2024 IL App (4th) 230415-U, ¶ 3.

¶6 On September 13, 2024, defendant filed a pro se motion to “forward

discovery/common law record.” In the motion, defendant requested the trial court and the circuit

court clerk provide him a certified copy of the common law record in this case for the purpose of

postconviction proceedings. He stated his prior counsel had retired and was unable to provide the

requested information. He further requested various affidavits and reports related to the case. No

hearing was held on defendant’s motion.

¶7 On September 20, 2024, the trial court dismissed the motion. In a written order,

the court stated it considered “defendant’s pro se pleading to be a Petition for Post Conviction

relief.” The court found the motion was “patently without merit and frivolous,” as the motion

failed to assert a claim of a substantial denial of federal or state constitutional rights. Rather, the

motion appeared to be a request for the court to produce documents.

¶8 This appeal followed.

¶9 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 10 Defendant contends the trial court erred by recharacterizing his motion to

“forward discovery/common law record” as a postconviction petition without adhering to the

procedures mandated by our supreme court in Shellstrom. The State concedes the error, and we

accept the State’s concession.

-2- ¶ 11 The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2022))

provides a procedure by which defendants can assert their convictions resulted from a substantial

violation of their federal or state constitutional rights. People v. Tate, 2012 IL 112214, ¶ 8. A

defendant may file only one postconviction petition without obtaining leave of court. 725 ILCS

5/122-1(f) (West 2022). To obtain leave of court to file a successive postconviction petition, the

defendant must satisfy the cause-and-prejudice test by showing “cause for his or her failure to

bring the claim in his or her initial postconviction proceedings and prejudice results from that

failure.” 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2022).

¶ 12 The trial court may recharacterize an otherwise labeled pro se pleading and treat it

as a postconviction petition where the pleading alleges a constitutional deprivation cognizable

under the Act. Shellstrom, 216 Ill. 2d at 51. However, before recharacterizing a pro se pleading

as a postconviction petition, the court must first do the following:

“(1) notify the pro se litigant that the court intends to recharacterize the pleading,

(2) warn the litigant that this recharacterization means that any subsequent

postconviction petition will be subject to the restrictions on successive

postconviction petitions, and (3) provide the litigant an opportunity to withdraw

the pleading or to amend it so that it contains all the claims appropriate to a

postconviction petition that the litigant believes he or she has.” Shellstrom, 216

Ill. 2d at 57.

¶ 13 “The Shellstrom admonitions are designed to protect the rights of pro se

defendants and, in particular, to inform them of the limitation on filing successive postconviction

petitions and the need to amend their initial petition to include all possible postconviction

claims.” People v. Stoffel, 239 Ill. 2d 314, 328 (2010) (citing Shellstrom, 216 Ill. 2d at 57). We

-3- review de novo whether the trial court followed the correct procedure under Shellstrom. People

v. Bland, 2011 IL App (4th) 100624, ¶ 17.

¶ 14 The record shows the trial court failed to give defendant the requisite admonitions

prior to recharacterizing his pro se motion as a postconviction petition, as evidenced in its

September 20, 2024, order. The State agrees, and we accept its concession. Accordingly, we

vacate the judgment of the court dismissing defendant’s recharacterized motion and remand with

directions the court admonish defendant and provide him an opportunity to withdraw the motion

or amend it pursuant to Shellstrom, 216 Ill. 2d at 57.

¶ 15 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 16 For the reasons stated, we vacate the trial court’s dismissal of defendant’s pro se

motion and remand this cause for compliance with Shellstrom.

¶ 17 Order vacated and remanded with directions.

-4-