Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. Honorable Eugene E. Campion, Judge Presiding.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Theis
JUSTICE THEIS delivered the opinion of the court:
After a jury trial, the defendant, Marie Perkins, was found guilty of reckless conduct and was sentenced to one year conditional discharge plus costs. The judgment of the circuit court was affirmed by this court in a Rule 23 Order. On January 21, 1992, Perkins filed a petition for relief from judgment pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 110, par. 2-1401.) On March 3, 1992, the court dismissed this petition. Perkins appeals the dismissal of her petition without an evidentiary hearing. The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether the dismissal of the petition was erroneous. We now affirm the decision of the trial court.
The defendant's trial commenced on December 11, 1989. Our previous order relates the relevant testimony elicited at trial. However, it is now necessary to review briefly the testimony as it was set forth in the earlier order. The complainant, Cheryl Marchok, testified that on February 10, 1989, Marchok arrived at her place of work at the North Riverside office of the Cook County Forest Preserve District. She pulled her car into the parking lot and backed into aparking space. She further testified that Perkins drove into the parking space next to her own. Marchok turned off her ignition and got out of her car. She testified that Perkins remained seated in her own car. According to Marchok, Perkins pointed a gun at Marchok and said, "Why don't you do the job right next time and use my gun." (On cross-examination, Marchok explained that a rumor had been circulating that she had previously attempted suicide and Perkins was referring to this rumor when she made her statement.) Marchok also testified that, before Perkins pulled away, Perkins told Marchok that the post office knew where she lived.
The first witness testifying for the defense was Donna Miller, a Cook County Forest Preserve employee. Miller testified that she was at work in the garage when she observed Marchok and Perkins talking in the parking lot. Miller stated that she could see the back end of the defendant's car and the front end of Marchok's car. She also stated that she did not see a gun at any time. She observed Marchok walk away from the defendant's car and speak with Officer Webster who was seated in a squad car. Officer Webster, Officer Palacios and James Kaszuba also testified for the defense.
Perkins then testified that on February 10, 1989, she went to Marchok's place of employment to inquire about Marchok's attempted suicide. Perkins pulled up next to Marchok's car in the parking lot and asked how Marchok was doing. She further testified that she asked Marchok if it was true that she had again tried to commit suicide with a gun. She stated that she also told Marchok that she continued to get Marchok's mail at the house and that she was going to let the post office know where Marchok now lived.
In essence, then, the jury was required to weigh the testimony of Cheryl Marchok and her version of the events which occurred on February 10, 1989, against that of Marie Perkins. The jury found Perkins guilty of reckless conduct and not guilty of aggravated assault. We affirmed this conviction in a Rule 23 Order filed on May 7, 1992.
On January 21, 1992, Perkins filed a petition for relief from judgment pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 110, par. 2-1401.) Attached to the petition was the affidavit of Donna Miller, a Cook County Forest Preserve employee who had testified for the defense at trial. Donna Miller's affidavit stated:
"That complainant * * * Cheryl M. Marchok, visited affiant on 30 Nov 91 [sic] at her apartment in Berwyn between the hours of 11:30 p.m. & 4:30 a.m. During the course of her visit, Cheryl told Donna that defendant, Marie Perkins, never had a gun, whichcomplainant accused defendant of on 10 Feb 89 [sic] in the Forest Preserve parking lot."
The trial court denied Perkins' petition for relief from judgment on March 3, 1992, stating that, in order to obtain such relief, Perkins would have to bring Marchok before the court and get her to recant the testimony which she had given at the trial. The trial Judge indicated that he would not grant relief based upon a hearsay affidavit.
Perkins appeals the dismissal of her section 2-1401 petition for relief from judgment. Before we begin our analysis, we note that a reviewing court will only interfere with the trial court's decision on a petition for relief from judgment where it is shown that the trial court abused its discretion. Redmond v. Devine (1987), 152 Ill. App. 3d 68, 76, 504 N.E.2d 138, 143.
A section 2-1401 petition for relief from judgment must establish that there are adequate grounds for such relief and that the petitioner was not negligent in failing to raise the grounds for relief at trial. ( People v. Sanchez (1986), 115 Ill. 2d 238, 284, 503 N.E.2d 277, 295.) Such a petition must be supported by an affidavit or by some other appropriate showing. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 110, par. 2-1401(b).) This affidavit must be a sufficient and competent affidavit ( Amerco Field Office v. Onoforio (1974), 22 Ill. App. 3d 989, 991, 317 N.E.2d 596, 598), which is made by a person having first-hand knowledge of the factual allegations. See Mitchell v. Seidler (1979), 68 Ill. App. 3d 478, 482, 386 N.E.2d 284, 286 ("For a section 72 petition to be legally sufficient, a person having first hand knowledge of its factual allegations, which are extraneous to the record, must either verify the petition or submit an affidavit in support of it.").
Therefore, an affidavit based on the hearsay of an attorney is generally not sufficient to support a section 2-1401 motion. ( Sanchez, 115 Ill. 2d at 284, 503 N.E.2d at 295; Windmon v. Banks (1975), 31 Ill. App. 3d 870, 876, 335 N.E.2d 116, 121.) While considering an attorney's affidavit which was ...