Find Legal Information

JUSTICE O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, James Townsend, appeals the summary dismissal ofhis postconviction petition. The trial court denied defendant'spetition at the initial stage of the postconviction proceedingsbecause, among other things, the petition was not filed timely. Defendant argues on appeal that this court should remand the causeso that defendant can allege facts in his petition that establishthat his delay in filing the petition was not due to his ownculpable negligence. Defendant additionally argues that the trialcourt erred when it summarily dismissed his postconviction petitionbecause defendant raised a valid constitutional issue in hispetition. Specifically, defendant claimed that his consecutivesentences were unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). We affirm.

Following a jury trial, which was conducted in February 1993,defendant was convicted of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9--1(a)(2) (West 1992)) and attempted first degree murder (720 ILCS5/8--4(a), 9--1(a)(2) (West 1992)). On April 2, 1993, he wassentenced to consecutive sentences of 55 years' imprisonment forfirst degree murder and 30 years' imprisonment for attempted firstdegree murder. Defendant appealed, and this court affirmeddefendant's convictions and sentences. See People v. Townsend, No.2--93--0563 (1995) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).

On July 20, 1995, our supreme court denied defendant'spetition for leave to appeal. On December 26, 2000, defendantfiled a pro se postconviction petition, arguing, among otherthings, that his consecutive sentences were unconstitutional underApprendi. Defendant never argued in his petition or at any timebefore or after the petition was filed that the delay in filing hispostconviction petition was not due to his own culpable negligence. The trial court denied the petition, finding, among other things,that the petition was not filed timely. This appeal followed.

There are three stages to a postconviction proceeding, andthis appeal concerns the first such stage, i.e., the trial court'sinitial review. People v. Parham, 318 Ill. App. 3d 818, 821(2001). During the initial review, the trial court may dismiss thepostconviction petition of a defendant who has been sentenced to aterm of imprisonment if the court finds that the petition isfrivolous and patently without merit. 725 ILCS 5/122--2.1(a)(2)(West 2000). The court must evaluate the merits of the petition atthe initial review without any input from either the State or thedefendant. Parham, 318 Ill. App. 3d at 821. We review de novo thetrial court's summary dismissal of a defendant's postconvictionpetition. Parham, 318 Ill. App. 3d at 821.

Section 122--1(c) of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act)(725 ILCS 5/122--1(c) (2000)) sets forth the time limitationswithin which a defendant must file a postconviction petition. Thissection of the Act specifically provides as follows:

"No proceedings under this Article shall be commencedmore than 6 months after the denial of a petition for leave toappeal or the date for filing such a petition if none is filedor more than 45 days after the defendant files his or herbrief in the appeal of the sentence before the IllinoisSupreme Court (or more than 45 days after the deadline for thefiling of the defendant's brief with the Illinois SupremeCourt if no brief is filed) or 3 years from the date ofconviction, whichever is sooner, unless the [defendant]alleges facts showing that the delay was not due to his or herculpable negligence." 725 ILCS 5/122--1(c) (West 2000).

Here, defendant filed his petition almost 8 years after he wasconvicted and 5