Smith v. Jeffreys

2021 IL App (5th) 200162-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: August 4, 2021
• Docket: 5-20-0162
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE 2021 IL App (5th) 200162-U NOTICE Decision filed 08/04/21. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NO. 5-20-0162 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is changed or corrected prior to not precedent except in the the filing of a Petition for IN THE limited circumstances allowed Rehearing or the disposition of under Rule 23(e)(1). the same. APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT ________________________________________________________________________

JARED M. SMITH, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Johnson County. ) v. ) No. 20-MR-16 ) ROB JEFFREYS, as Acting Director of the ) Department of Corrections; JOHN BALDWIN, ) Director of Department of Corrections (2010-2012); ) JOHN DOE, as Chief Administrative Officer of the ) Department of Corrections (2010-2012); and ) JOHN DOE, as Records Office Supervisor of the ) Department of Corrections, ) Honorable ) James R. Williamson, Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge, presiding. ________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE BARBERIS delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Wharton and Vaughan concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint for mandamus.

¶2 The plaintiff, Jared M. Smith, appeals pro se the dismissal of his complaint for

mandamus relief wherein he alleged that the Illinois Department of Corrections incorrectly

added 15 years onto his sentence. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

1 ¶3 BACKGROUND

¶4 On June 20, 2010, plaintiff was sentenced to 12 years of incarceration for unlawful

use or possession of a weapon by a felon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2010)) and 27 years

of incarceration for armed robbery (id. § 18-2(a)(2)), with his sentences to run

concurrently.

¶5 On February 11, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a mandamus petition

along with a complaint for mandamus relief against the defendants (herein, Department).

Plaintiff argued that his 27-year sentence for armed robbery included a 15-year firearm

enhancement and that the Department’s addition of this enhancement to his sentence was

improper because the statute on which that enhancement was based had been declared

unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court. He further argued that the Department had

failed to provide him with the factual information it had relied on in adding the 15-year

enhancement, in violation of section 3-5-1 of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS

5/3-5-1 (West 2010)). Attached to plaintiff’s complaint was a copy of his judgment of

conviction, which shows that for count I, armed robbery with a firearm, plaintiff was

sentenced to “12 years on CT 1 with 15 years added by statute for a total of 27 years and

12 years on CT II.” Plaintiff sought to compel the Department to “1) To provide the factual

information it relied upon when it gave him an extra 15 years. 2) Fix the wrong that was

wrought as a result of enforcing an unenforceable, inoppe[r]able amendment to the armed

robbery statute. 3) Cause plaintiff’s immediate release.”

¶6 The Department filed a motion to dismiss and memorandum of law under section

2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018)). The Department 2 argued that the copy of plaintiff’s judgment of conviction attached to his petition

demonstrated that the 15-year enhancement was part of his judicially imposed sentence,

and that mandamus cannot be used to review orders or judgments of a court for error. The

court granted the Department’s motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff had failed to state

a cause of action for mandamus relief against the Department because plaintiff’s sentence,

including the 15-year enhancement, had been imposed by the court. Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration was denied and this timely appeal followed.

¶7 ANALYSIS

¶8 On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his mandamus

complaint wherein he alleged that the Department improperly added 15 years to his

sentence. We do not agree.

¶9 We begin by noting our standard of review. “The grant of a motion to dismiss for a

failure to state a cause of action filed pursuant to section 2-615 or a motion for an

involuntary dismissal based on defects or defenses in the pleadings pursuant to section 2-

619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619 (West 2004)) is subject to

de novo review.” Rodriguez v. Illinois Prisoner Review Board, 376 Ill. App. 3d 429, 433

(2007) (citing White v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 368 Ill. App. 3d 278, 282 (2006)). “Where

the dismissal was proper as a matter of law, we may affirm the circuit court’s decision on

any basis appearing in the record.” Id. (citing MKL Pre-Press Electronics/MKL Computer

Media Supplies, Inc. v. La Crosse Litho Supply, LLC, 361 Ill. App. 3d 872, 877 (2005)).

¶ 10 “Mandamus is an extraordinary civil remedy that will be granted to enforce, as a

matter of right, the performance of official nondiscretionary duties by a public officer.” Id. 3 (citing Lee v. Findley, 359 Ill. App. 3d 1130, 1133 (2005)). “Mandamus will issue only

where the plaintiff has fulfilled his burden (see Mason v. Snyder, 332 Ill. App. 3d 834, 840

(2002)) to set forth every material fact needed to demonstrate that (1) he has a clear right

to the relief requested, (2) there is a clear duty on the part of the defendant to act, and

(3) clear authority exists in the defendant to comply with an order granting mandamus

relief.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. at 433-34 (citing Baldacchino v. Thompson, 289 Ill. App.

3d 104, 109 (1997)). “Because Illinois is a fact-pleading jurisdiction, a plaintiff is required

to set forth a legally recognized claim and plead facts in support of each element that bring

the claim within the cause of action alleged.” Id. at 434 (citing Beahringer v. Page, 204 Ill.

2d 363, 369 (2003)). “To survive a motion to dismiss ***, a complaint must be both legally

and factually sufficient.” Id. “A writ of mandamus is appropriate when used to compel

compliance with mandatory legal standards but not when the act in question involves the

exercise of a public officer’s discretion.” McFatridge v. Madigan, 2013 IL 113676, ¶ 17.

¶ 11 The gist of plaintiff’s argument is that the Department improperly added the 15-year

enhancement to his sentence. Plaintiff’s own mandamus complaint refutes this claim. As

noted above, the copy of plaintiff’s judgment of conviction entered by the circuit court of

Vermilion County and attached to his complaint for mandamus demonstrates that it was

the court, not the Department, which included the 15-year enhancement in plaintiff’s

27-year sentence for armed robbery, and the Department has no authority to modify his

sentence. Further, the plaintiff has not shown a clear right to modification of his sentence

nor that the Department would be completing a ministerial, nondiscretionary task. This

mandamus complaint was properly dismissed. 4 ¶ 12 CONCLUSION

¶ 13 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Johnson County is

affirmed.

¶ 14 Affirmed.