Powell v. Calloway

2021 IL App (5th) 180522-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: August 17, 2021
• Docket: 5-18-0522
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE 2021 IL App (5th) 180522-U NOTICE Decision filed 08/17/21. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NO. 5-18-0522 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Peti ion for not precedent except in the

Rehearing or the disposition of IN THE limited circumstances allowed the same. under Rule 23(e)(1).

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT ________________________________________________________________________

JOHN A. POWELL, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Jefferson County. ) v. ) No. 18-MR-38 ) VICTOR CALLOWAY, Warden, ) Honorable ) Jerry E. Crisel, Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, presiding. ________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE WELCH delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Barberis and Vaughan concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: We affirm the circuit court’s sua sponte denial of the plaintiff’s habeas corpus complaint because the complaint was insufficient on its face to warrant relief.

¶2 The plaintiff, John A. Powell, appeals pro se the sua sponte dismissal of his

complaint for habeas corpus. On appeal, he argues that he is entitled to release because

the court which entered his conviction lacked jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we

affirm.

¶3 The plaintiff’s habeas corpus complaint focused on two separate 2014 convictions

for residential burglary (Cook County case Nos. 14C-66097-01 and 14C-660095-01). In

1 both cases, the plaintiff represented himself and was convicted following a jury trial. He

was sentenced to 15 and 18 years’ incarceration, respectively, with his sentences to run

concurrently.

¶4 On January 23, 2018, plaintiff filed a complaint in Jefferson County for

habeas corpus relief, alleging, inter alia, that the Cook County trial court lacked

jurisdiction because the judge entered a plea of not guilty on the plaintiff’s behalf and

without his permission. The Jefferson County circuit court dismissed the plaintiff’s

habeas corpus complaint sua sponte. This appeal followed.

¶5 “It is well established that an order of habeas corpus is available only to obtain the

release of a prisoner who has been incarcerated under a judgment of a court that lacked

jurisdiction of the subject matter or the person of the petitioner, or where there has been

some occurrence subsequent to the prisoner’s conviction that entitles him to release.”

Beacham v. Walker, 231 Ill. 2d 51, 58 (2008) (citing People v. Gosier, 205 Ill. 2d 198, 205

(2001), and Barney v. Prisoner Review Board, 184 Ill. 2d 428, 430 (1998)). “A petition

for writ of habeas corpus may not be used to review proceedings that do not exhibit one of

the defects set forth in the statute, even though the alleged error involves a denial of

constitutional rights. [Citations.]” Schlemm v. Cowan, 323 Ill. App. 3d 318, 320 (2001).

The circuit court may sua sponte dismiss a petition for a writ of habeas corpus that is

patently nonmeritorious or insufficient on its face. Beacham, 231 Ill. 2d at 59; Hennings

v. Chandler, 229 Ill. 2d 18, 24 (2008). We apply a de novo standard of review to the

dismissal of an application for habeas corpus. Hennings, 229 Ill. 2d at 24.

2 ¶6 The plaintiff’s complaint did not allege the happening of a postconviction

occurrence entitling him to release. Instead, he argued that the court which entered his

convictions lacked jurisdiction because the court violated his sixth amendment right to

counsel when it entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf and without his consent. The

plaintiff’s claim is meritless.

¶7 It has long been held that subject matter jurisdiction is granted to the circuit courts

by the Illinois Constitution, and that they “have jurisdiction in all cases involving offenses

which fall within the ambit of section 1-5 of the Criminal Code [citation].” People v.

Gilmore, 63 Ill. 2d 23, 26 (1976). “A criminal defendant confers personal jurisdiction upon

the trial court when he appears and joins” in the proceedings. People v. Woodall, 333 Ill.

App. 3d 1146, 1156 (2002) (citing People v. Speed, 318 Ill. App. 3d 910, 932 (2001)).

Once a court has acquired jurisdiction, no subsequent error or irregularity will oust

jurisdiction. Id. at 1157.

¶8 Here, the trial court acquired subject matter jurisdiction when the plaintiff was

charged with residential burglary in violation of the Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS

5/19-3(a) (West 2012)), and it acquired personal jurisdiction when he appeared before the

court. Assuming, arguendo, that the trial court erred in entering a plea of not guilty on the

plaintiff’s behalf, such error would not have ousted jurisdiction.

¶9 Because the plaintiff’s habeas complaint alleged no set of facts that would support

a finding that the court which entered his conviction lacked jurisdiction, nor did he argue

the occurrence of a postconviction event which entitles him to release, the circuit court

properly dismissed his complaint. Gosier, 205 Ill. 2d at 205. 3 ¶ 10 The plaintiff also argues that the Cook County circuit court denied his request for

transcripts of his trial that he needed for his habeas corpus complaint. This argument is

not properly before this court. Any appeal from an order or judgment of the circuit court

of Cook County, other than those appealable directly to the Illinois Supreme Court, must

be appealed to the First District Appellate Court. See 705 ILCS 25/8.1 (West 2018).

¶ 11 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Jefferson County is

affirmed.

¶ 12 Affirmed.