2020 IL App (1st) 19-0899-U
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
SECOND DIVISION June 30, 2020
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Respondent-Appellee, ) Cook County, Illinois, ) Criminal Division. v. ) ) No. 88 CR 18391 EUKA WADLINGTON, ) ) The Honorable Petitioner-Appellant. ) Thomas J. Byrne, ) Judge Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE FITZGERALD SMITH delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Lavin and Coghlan concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Dismissal of the petition for relief from judgment (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2018)), which attempted to vacate a 1988 guilty plea, on the basis that it was untimely, was proper. Where, in entering the guilty plea, the trial court had both subject matter and personal jurisdiction, the plea was not a void judgment that could be collaterally attacked in perpetuity.
¶2 The petitioner, Euka Wadlington, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for relief from
judgment (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2018)) seeking vacature of his 1988 drug conviction. On
appeal, the petitioner contends that the trial court erred when it dismissed his petition as
untimely, where he established that his 1988 drug conviction resulted from a plea that was No. 1-19-0899
entered without a factual basis for an essential element of the crime. The petitioner argues that
as such the plea was a void judgment that could have been attacked at any time. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 The underlying facts of this case are undisputed. On November 17, 1988, the petitioner was
charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver in case number 88 CR
18391. The indictment charged the petitioner with “knowingly and unlawfully” possessing
“with intent to deliver” “more than 1 but less than 15 grams” of cocaine (Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 56
1/2, para. 1401). 1 While awaiting trial, in 1990, the petitioner was charged with a separate
narcotics offense in case number 90 CR 11548. The petitioner proceeded to trial in case number
90 CR 11548 and was found guilty of simple possession of a controlled substance (i.e. cocaine).
Subsequently, the petitioner entered into a negotiated plea agreement with the State in case
number 88 CR 18391 where he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver in exchange
for a three-year concurrent sentence on both cases.
¶5 On March 8, 1991, the petitioner appeared before the trial court to enter his plea and be
sentenced on both cases. After defense counsel indicated that the petitioner was ready to proceed
with his plea, the trial court stated:
“Mr. Wadlington, on case number 8818391, we had a conference on your case
yesterday[.] You're charged with possession of [a] controlled substance with intent to deliver,
a class two felony, carrying a possible sentence from 3 to7 years in the penitentiary with a
mandatory supervised release term of two years.
1 That offense is now found in 720 ILCS 570/401.1
2 No. 1-19-0899
In return for your plea of guilty to that case, I would sentence you to three years in the
Illinois Department of Corrections. It would run concurrently with the sentence I am going to
impose on case number 90-11548, the case in which you were found guilty of possession of
[a] controlled substance on January 28th, 1990. Is that your understanding of the agreement
Mr. Wadlington?”
The petitioner indicated that this was in fact his understanding of the plea agreement.
¶6 The court next admonished the petitioner of his rights pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court
Rule 402 (Ill. S. Ct. R. 402 (eff. Feb. 1, 1981)). After the petitioner waived his rights, the court
found that he understood the nature of the charges against him and the penalties that could be
imposed, and that he was freely and voluntarily entering his guilty plea.
¶7 The trial court then recited the factual basis stipulated to by the parties in support of the plea:
“There would be a stipulation between the parties that on September 23rd, 1988, in Cook
County, Illinois, [the petitioner] was found in possession of 14.5 grams of cocaine in
individual packets. He was over the age of 17 at the time. So stipulated?”
After both the State and defense counsel affirmed that these were the stipulated facts, the trial
court held:
“The court finds there is a factual basis for the plea of guilty. There will be a finding of
guilty[.] Judgment on the finding.”
¶8 The court then continued in the following manner:
“The record should reflect I read the arrest reports and the transcripts, and there is, in
fact, a factual basis for the plea of guilty on [the petitioner’s] other case, 90-11548.
Filed for a motion for a new trial, I have reviewed that motion. Counsel. Do you want to
argue the motion or no? Do you want to argue the motion for a new trial or not?”
3 No. 1-19-0899
¶9 Defense counsel indicated that he would offer no further argument on his motion for a
new trial in case number 90 CR 11548, and the trial court denied that motion. The petitioner
never sought to withdraw his guilty plea nor appealed his conviction or sentence.
¶ 10 The parties agree that in 1988, the petitioner was charged in a federal indictment in the
Southern District of Iowa on drug and conspiracy charges. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and
chose to proceed with a jury trial. Prior to that trial, the district attorney filed a notice of prior
convictions pursuant 21 U.S.C. § 851, alleging that the petitioner was eligible for a mandatory
life sentence based upon two prior Illinois convictions. A federal jury convicted the petitioner of
conspiracy and attempt to distribute illegal narcotics. On August 5, 1999, the district judge
imposed a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The
petitioner’s Illinois conviction in case number 88 CR 18391 was used to trigger the mandatory
life sentence under the federal three strikes law. See 21 U.S.C. § 841. At present, the petitioner
has already been incarcerated for twenty years.
¶ 11 On May 13, 2018, the petitioner filed a section 2-1401 petition for relief from judgment (735
ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2018)) seeking to vacate his guilty plea in case number 88 CR 18391. The
petitioner alleged that he obtained a transcript of his plea hearing in that case for the first time in
2017. The petitioner then argued that his 1988 conviction was a void judgment because during
the plea proceedings no factual basis was provided for an essential element of the crime, namely
“intent to deliver.” 720 ILCS 570/401 (West 2018). Therefore, the petitioner sought to vacate
his guilty plea as “void” even though he filed his petition after the two-year limitations period set
forth in section 2-1401(c) had expired. See 735 ILCS 5/2-1401(c), (f) (West 2018) (Allowing an
attack on a void judgment at any time in a direct or collateral proceeding).
¶ 12 On October 10, 2018, the State filed a motion to dismiss the petition. In its motion, the State
4 No. 1-19-0899
did not dispute that the factual stipulation in case number 18 CR 18391 was defective in that it
failed to establish the State’s intent to deliver cocaine, an essential element of the offense.
Rather, citing to Steinbrecher v. Steinbrecher, 197 Ill. 2d 514 (2001), Belleville Toyota, Inc., v.
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325, 335-37 (2002), and People v. Castleberry, 2015
IL 116916, ¶ 12, the State argued that the void judgment rule, or the “inherent power idea of
jurisdiction” had been abolished in Illinois. According to the State, in Illinois, a judgment on a
defective plea is voidable, rather than void, and collateral attacks on such a judgment are subject
to time restrictions. The State maintained that because the petition was not filed within the two-
year time limitation set forth in section 2-1401(c) (735 ILCS 5/2-1401(c) (West 2018)), it should
be dismissed as untimely.
¶ 13 In his reply, the petitioner relied on People v. McCarty, 94 Ill. 2d 28 (1983), and People v.
Edge, 406 Ill. 490 (1950), arguing that the void judgment rule was still effective in Illinois.
¶ 14 On April 2, 2019, after hearing arguments by both parties, the trial court granted the State’s
motion to dismiss the petition for relief from judgment. At the outset, the court expressed that it
was “not unsympathetic” to the petitioner’s predicament--a life sentenced premised on three
narcotics offenses. Nonetheless, the court explained that it was legally compelled to find that the
petition was both untimely and that it lacked merit. With respect to timeliness, the court agreed
with the State that pursuant to our supreme court’s decision in Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, ¶
12, “any error in factual basis would be voidable *** rather than void,” triggering the two-year
statute of limitations in section 2-1401(c) (735 ILCS 5/2-1401(c) (West 2018)). In addition, with
respect to the merits, the court found that even though the stated factual basis was insufficient, it
could infer a factual basis form the comments made by the trial judge during the guilty plea
proceedings. As the court explained:
5 No. 1-19-0899
“[The trial court] did participate in a 402 Conference, she did state of record that she read the
arrest report, and, in fact, included that in the record to support the factual basis for the
conviction.”
Those arrest reports described the traffic stop during which the petitioner was arrested, and noted
that the arresting officer observed the petitioner exiting a vehicle and handing the passenger, his
codefendant, a brown bag, from which narcotics were later recovered. The trial court held that
because intent to deliver could be inferred from this arrest report, the factual basis for the
petitioner’s plea was sufficient. Accordingly, the court held that regardless of timeliness, the
petition lacked merit. The petitioner now appeals.
¶ 15 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 16 On appeal, the petitioner contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition for relief
from judgment both as untimely and on the merits. Just as he did below, the petitioner asserts
that his 1988 guilty plea was void because the factual basis as articulated by the trial court at the
plea hearing failed to set forth any facts establishing the necessary element of intent for the
charged offense. Accordingly, the petitioner argues that he was exempt from the two-year
limitations period in section 2-1401(c) (735 ILCS 5/2-1401(c) (West 2018)). In addition, the
petitioner contends that in dismissing his petition for relief from judgement, the trial court
improperly speculated as to what facts the plea hearing judge may have heard off-the-record, to
infer that there was in fact, a sufficient factual basis for his 1988 plea. For the reasons that
follow, we disagree.
¶ 17 We begin by setting forth the well-established principles regarding petitions for relief from
judgment. Section 2-1401 of the Code provides a comprehensive statutory procedure by which
final orders, judgments, and decrees may be vacated or modified in civil or criminal proceedings
6 No. 1-19-0899
30 days from their entry. People v. Dodds, 2014 IL App (1st) 122268, ¶ 17; see also In re Dar.
C., 2011 IL 111083, ¶ 104; People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1, 7 (2007); Warren County Soil and
Water Conservation Dist. v. Walters, 2015 IL 117783, ¶ 31. While section 2-1401 petitions are
ordinarily used to bring facts to the attention of the trial court which, if known at the time of
judgment, would have precluded its entry, they may also be used to challenge a purportedly
defective judgement for legal reasons. Warren County Soil, 2015 IL 117783, ¶ 31.
¶ 18 To be entitled to relief under section 2–1401, a defendant must prove by a preponderance of
the evidence: (1) the existence of a meritorious defense or claim; (2) due diligence in presenting
this defense or claim to the circuit court in the original action; and (3) due diligence in filing the
section 2–1401 petition for relief. Dodds, 2014 IL App (1st) 122268, ¶ 18; People v. Pinkonsly,
207 Ill. 2d 555, 566 (2003); see also Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 7–8.
¶ 19 Generally, the petition must be filed within two years after entry of the judgment being
challenged, unless the opposing party waives the limitations period. 735 ILCS 5/2–1401(a), (c)
(West 2018); see also Dodds, 2014 IL App (1st) 122268, ¶ 19; Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d at 7. An
exception to this two-year limitation period exists where the petition challenges the judgment as
void, or where a clear showing has been made that: (1) the person seeking relief was under legal
disability or duress; or (2) the grounds for relief were fraudulently concealed. See Dodds, 2014
IL App (1st) 122268, ¶ 19. The allegation “that the judgment or order is void substitutes for and
negates the need to allege a meritorious defense and due diligence.” (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) People v. Walters, 2015 IL 117783, ¶ 48.
¶ 20 The standard of review on appeal depends on whether the petitioner has presented a factual
or legal challenge to a final judgment or order. Warren County Soil, 2015 IL 117783, ¶ 31. If a
petition raises a purely legal issue that does not involve a factual dispute, and the trial court
7 No. 1-19-0899
enters a judgment on the pleadings, or dismissal for failure to state a cause of action, the
reviewing court applies a de novo standard of review. Id. ¶¶ 47-48. If, on the other hand, a
section 2-1401 petition raises a fact-dependent challenge to a final judgment, our review is for an
abuse of discretion. Id. ¶ 50.
¶ 21 The petitioner’s first challenge to the dismissal of his petition on the basis that it was void,
rather than voidable, and therefore timely, raises a purely legal question, which we review de
novo. See People v. Abtahi, 2020 IL App (1st) 181631, ¶ 16 (“We review a circuit court's
decision regarding a section 2-1401 petition alleging that a judgment is void de novo.”); see also
People v. Rodriguez, 355 Ill. App. 3d 290, 293 (2005).
¶ 22 In this respect, the petitioner contends that a judgment on a guilty plea that is without a
factual basis is necessarily void and therefore can be collaterally attacked after the two-year
limitations period has expired. In support of his position, the petitioner cites to McCarty, 94 Ill.
2d 28, and Edge, 406 Ill. 490. We disagree and find those decisions inapposite.
¶ 23 Our supreme court has repeatedly made clear that void judgments “occupy a ‘unique place’
in our legal system. [Citation.]” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Price, 2016 IL
118613, ¶ 30. Because a void judgment may be challenged at any time, either directly or
collaterally, such that the challenge is neither limited by forfeiture nor other procedural
restraints, “only the most fundamental defects warrant declaring a judgment void.” Id. As a
result, our supreme court has recognized only three circumstances in which a judgment will be
deemed void: (1) where the judgment was entered by a court that lacked personal or subject-
matter jurisdiction, (2) where the judgment was based on a statute that is facially unconstitutional
and void ab initio, and (3) where a judgment of sentence did not conform to a statutory
requirement (the void sentence rule). Id.; see also Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶¶ 31–33.
8 No. 1-19-0899
¶ 24 Five years ago, in Castleberry, our supreme court abolished the third type of void judgment,
further narrowing the universe of judgments subject to attack in perpetuity. Id. Castleberry
determined that the “inherent power” view of jurisdiction, on which the void sentence rule was
based, could not be reconciled with the constitutional grant of jurisdiction and was at odds with
the court’s prior precedent rejecting that view of jurisdiction in the civil context. Id. ¶ 18 (citing
Steinbrecher v. Steinbrecher, 197 Ill. 2d 514, 530 (2001)). The court explained that unlike a
voidable judgment, which is one entered erroneously by a court having jurisdiction, a void
judgment is one entered by a court lacking either subject matter jurisdiction or personal
jurisdiction. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, ¶¶ 11–12. “Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a
court's power ‘ “to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceeding in
question belongs.” ’ ” Id., ¶ 12 (quoting In re M.W., 232 Ill. 2d 408, 415 (2009) quoting
Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325, 334 (2002)). Personal
jurisdiction, “refers to the court's power ‘ “to bring a person into its adjudicative process.” ’ ” Id.
¶ 12 (quoting M.W., 232 Ill. 2d at 415, quoting Black's Law Dictionary 870 (8th ed. 2004)).
Castleberry held that because jurisdiction is conferred on the circuit courts by the Illinois
constitution, a statutory requirement or prerequisite that gives the court “authority or power” to
act is not jurisdictional. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, ¶ 15. In addition, in abolishing the void
sentence rule, Castleberry espoused a clear policy favoring finality of judgments. Id. ¶ 15 (citing
LVNV Funding, LLC v. Trice, 2015 IL 116129). Ultimately, Castleberry concluded that because
a “ ‘circuit court is a court of general jurisdiction, which need not look to the statute for its
jurisdictional authority’ [citation] the void sentence rule is constitutionally unsound.” Id. at ¶ 19
(quoting Steinbrecher, 197 Ill. 2d at 530).
¶ 25 Since Castleberry, our supreme court has twice reaffirmed that in Illinois a judgment will be
9 No. 1-19-0899
considered void only where it: (1) was entered by a court lacking personal or subject-matter
jurisdiction; or (2) rests on a facially unconstitutional statute. See Price, 2016 IL 118613, ¶ 31;
Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶¶ 31–33; see also People v. Abtahi, 2020 IL App (1st) 181631,
¶16.
¶ 26 Under this precedent, we are compelled to conclude that the petitioner’s 1988 guilty plea is
not void. The petitioner does not allege that his guilty plea was based on a facially
unconstitutional statue and is void ab initio. Nor does he directly challenge either the trial
court’s personal or subject matter jurisdiction. Instead, he argues that a defect in his plea
proceedings, namely an insufficient factual basis on an element of the charged offense, deprived
the trial court of the power to convict and sentence him.
¶ 27 To the extent that the petitioner indirectly challenges the trial court’s jurisdiction on the basis
of an error committed by the trial court, his argument has no merit under the holding in
Castleberry. The trial court here unquestionably had both subject matter and personal
jurisdiction over the petitioner. “A criminal defendant confers personal jurisdiction upon the
trial court when he appears and joins the issues with a plea.” People v. Woodall, 333 Ill. App. 3d
1146, 1156 (2002). The petitioner, here, undoubtedly did so when he appeared in court and
participated in the plea proceedings. Similarly, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over
the petitioner’s criminal case, as that jurisdiction was obtained from article VI, section 9, of the
Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 9). See Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, ¶ 18. Once
the trial court acquired jurisdiction “no subsequent error or irregularity [could] oust the
jurisdiction thus acquired,” and the court could not lose its jurisdiction by making “a mistake in
determining either the facts, the law, or both.” People v. Moran, 2012 IL App (1st) 111165, ¶ 17
(quoting People v. Davis, 156 Ill. 2d 149, 156 (1993)). Accordingly, because the trial court had
10 No. 1-19-0899
jurisdiction both over the petitioner’s person and the subject matter, any error in its articulation
of the factual basis of the petitioner’s plea, could not have rendered that plea void. See
Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, ¶ 19. Instead, any such error would have rendered the plea merely
voidable and not subject to collateral attack. See Id. ¶ 11 (“A voidable judgment ‘is one entered
erroneously by a court having jurisdiction and is not subject to collateral attack.’ [Citation.]” );
see also People v. Smith, 406 Ill. App. 3d 879, 887 (2010) (“a violation of Supreme Court Rule
402 ***does not defeat the trial court’s jurisdiction to enter convictions based on a defendant’s
pleas and such a violation, even if constitutional in dimension, renders a conviction merely
voidable”); see also People v. Speed, 318 Ill. App. 3d 910, 916-7 (2001) (“When a court with
inherent power to enter an order commits a procedural error while exercising that power, the
error does not render the court's judgment void, but merely voidable.”).
¶ 28 The petitioner acknowledges that this is what our supreme court’s holding in Castleberry
would imply. Nonetheless, he contends that Castleberry is not controlling because the present
case does not involve the void sentence rule, but rather a void judgment. In this vein, the
petitioner urges us to follow the much earlier decisions of our supreme court in McCarty, 94 Ill.
2d 28, and Edge, 406 Ill. 490, for the proposition that in order for a trial court in a criminal case
to acquire subject matter jurisdiction, it is essential that the accused be charged with all of the
essential elements of the crime. See Edge, 406 Ill. at 493 (“To give a court jurisdiction in a
criminal case, it is essential that the indictment or information charge the accused with a crime.
[Citations.] Moreover, where the statutory definition of a crime includes the intent with which
the act is committed as an element of the offense, the intent must be alleged.”); McCarty, 94 Ill.
2d at 28 (“There can be no doubt that jurisdiction is lacking where the circumstances alleged do
11 No. 1-19-0899
not constitute the offense charged as it is defined in the statute and nothing short of alleging
entirely different facts could cure the defect.”)
¶ 29 The flaw in petitioner’s argument is twofold. First, both Edge and McCarty, involved fatal
defects in the charging instruments themselves, rendering the entire proceedings thereafter void.
In contrast, in the present case, the petitioner cannot point to any defect in the information, which
would have deprived the trial court from having subject matter jurisdiction over his plea
proceedings.
¶ 30 More importantly, the holdings of Edge and McCarty are premised on the theory of
the “inherent power” of the trial court to render a particular judgment or sentence in a criminal
case, a rationale which has been outright invalidated by Castleberry. See Castleberry, 2015 IL
116916,¶ 18 (holding that a judgment can be declared void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
or personal jurisdiction, but there is no “inherent power” idea of jurisdiction); see also Price,
2016 IL 118613, ¶ 17 (“Castleberry determined that the ‘inherent power’ view of jurisdiction
*** could not be reconciled with the constitutional grant of jurisdiction ***.”).
¶ 31 We see no good rationale to depart from the holding in Castleberry, and the petitioner offers
none. This is perhaps understandable, where even in the context of precedent dealing with
defective charging instruments, upon which the petitioner now relies, a review of our supreme
court’s decisions reveals that the court grappled with the concept of the trial court’s “inherent
authority” long before Castleberry. The petitioner fails to mention that subsequent to Edge, in
People v. Pujoue, 61 Ill. 2d 335, 339 (1975), the court departed from its original reasoning and
held that the failure to allege an element of an offense in a complaint did not, per se, render it
void. In Pujoue, the court held that “[w]hen attacked for the first time on appeal a complaint is
sufficient if it apprised the accused of the precise offense charged with sufficient specificity to
12 No. 1-19-0899
prepare his defense and allow pleading a resulting conviction as a bar to future prosecution
arising out of the same conduct.” Pujoue, 61 Ill. 2d at, 339. Thereafter, in People v. Gilmore, 63
Ill. 2d 23, 27 (1976), the court went on to state that a charging instrument, which fails to charge
an offense does not deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction. Gilmore's rationale was two-fold:
(1) that jurisdiction is conferred on circuit courts by the constitution rather than by indictment;
and (2) that the legislature, in section 114–1(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963
(Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 38, par. 114–1(a)), had distinguished between the absence of jurisdiction
and the failure to state an offense. Id., at 27-28. The supreme court again reaffirmed this
position in People v. Pankey, 94 Ill. 2d 12, 17 (1983) holding that “a defective charging
instrument does not operate to deprive the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction *** or
necessarily render the charge void.” But see, McCarty, 94 Ill. 2d at 28 (“There can be no doubt
that jurisdiction is lacking where the circumstances alleged do not constitute the offense charged
as it is defined in the statute and nothing short of alleging entirely different facts could cure the
defect.”)
¶ 32 These early decisions provide a glimpse into the concepts that permeated our supreme court’s
ultimate decision to reject the “inherent power” theory of jurisdiction and hold that circuit courts
solely obtain their jurisdiction from our state constitution. See Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, ¶
15. As Castleberry explained:
“While the legislature can create new justiciable matters by enacting legislation that
creates rights and duties, the failure to comply with a statutory requirement or
prerequisite does not negate the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction or constitute a
nonwaivable condition precedent to the circuit court’s jurisdiction.” Id.
¶ 33 The trial court here had jurisdiction over “all justiciable matters,” and therefore subject
13 No. 1-19-0899
matter jurisdiction to accept the petitioner’s plea and enter a conviction in his case. See
Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, ¶ 19; Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 9; see also Abtahi, 2020 IL App
(1st) 181631, ¶16. Any argument that by virtue of accepting the plea without a factual basis for
all of the elements of the charged offense, the trial court acted without inherent authority or
power, and thereby deprived itself of jurisdiction, is untenable, as it is no longer the law under
Castleberry.
¶ 34 Because we hold that the petitioner’s 1988 conviction is not void, we find that the filing of
his petition for relief from judgment 27 years after the entry of that guilty plea, warranted
dismissal pursuant to section 2-1401(c) (735 ICLS 5/2-1401 (West 2018)). Since dismissal was
proper on timeliness grounds, we need not address the merits of that petition.
¶ 35 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 36 For all of the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
¶ 37 Affirmed.