Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Lott

November 06, 2001

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
FREDDIE LEE LOTT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 14th Judicial Circuit, Rock Island County, Illinois, No. 84--CF--371 Honorable Charles H. Stengel, Judge, Presiding.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justice Slater.

Ordered published January 2, 2002.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
FREDDIE LEE LOTT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 14th Judicial Circuit, Rock Island County, Illinois, No. 84--CF--371 Honorable Charles H. Stengel, Judge, Presiding.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justice Slater.

The defendant, Freddie Lee Lott, was convicted of first degree murder (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 9--1(a)(3)) and sentenced to 60 years' imprisonment. His petition for relief from judgment under section 2--1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2--1401 (West 2000)) was dismissed as untimely. On appeal, the defendant claims that his sentence is void in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). We affirm.

FACTS

Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of first degree murder. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a 60-year term on the defendant. *fn1 The court stated that the sentence was based on the defendant's criminal history and its finding that the offense was accompanied by exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior. The court also considered serious bodily injury as a factor in aggravation.

On appeal, the defendant's conviction was affirmed, but the cause was remanded for a new sentencing hearing. People v. Freddie Lott, No. 3--85--0303 (1986) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). The trial court again found that the offense was accompanied by exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty and sentenced the defendant to an extended term of 60 years. This sentence was affirmed on appeal. People v. Freddie Lott, No. 3--87--0160 (1987) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).

The defendant filed two post-conviction petitions which were eventually dismissed without an evidentiary hearing. On November 2, 2000, the defendant filed a pro se petition for relief from judgment pursuant to section 2--1401 of the Code. The petition alleged that the imposition of an extended term sentence for murder based on a finding of brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty violates the tenets of Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 120 S. Ct. 2348. Without addressing the merits, the trial court dismissed the petition as untimely.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, the defendant contends that Apprendi should apply retroactively to his case. He maintains that his 1987 sentence is void and should be vacated because the triggering factor for his extended term was neither pled in the indictment nor found proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the trier of fact. In response, the State claims that the trial court properly dismissed the petition as untimely regardless of the merits of the underlying issue.

As a general rule, a petition for relief from judgment under section 2--1401 of the Code must be filed within two years after entry of the judgment being challenged. 735 ILCS 5/2--1401(c) (West 2000). A petition filed more than two years after a judgment will not be considered unless a clear showing has been made that the person seeking to the vacate the judgment was under legal disability or duress or the grounds for relief were fraudulently concealed. 735 ILCS 5/2--1401(c); People v. Caballero, 179 Ill. 2d 205, 688 N.E.2d 658 (1997). Relief may also be sought beyond the two-year limitations period where the judgment being challenged is void. People v. Harvey, No. 89522 (June 21, 2001), citing R.W. Sawant & Co. v. Allied Programs Corp., 111 Ill. 2d 304, 489 N.E.2d 1360 (1986). A void judgment is one that was entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or which lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved. R.W. Sawant & Co., 111 Ill. 2d 304, 489 N.E.2d 1360. When examining a trial court's ruling on a section 2--1401 petition in a criminal case, the appropriate standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion. People v. Haynes, 192 Ill. 2d 437, 737 N.E.2d 169 (2000).

The defendant's petition in the instant case was filed over 13 years after entry of the judgment from which he seeks relief. In his petition, the defendant does not claim that he was under duress or that the alleged error was fraudulently concealed. Accordingly, the defendant's section 2--1401 petition falls beyond the time parameters established under ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.