Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Second Division
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant defendant habeas corpus relief, notwithstanding the fact that the judge who presided over defendant's trial used deception to get elected to his judicial office and violated the residency requirements of the Election Code, since the de facto doctrine provides that the judge was an officer de facto, his acts were valid so far as the public or third parties were concerned, and defendant was precluded from making a collateral attack on the judge's authority in a proceeding.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 99-CR-12385; the Review Hon. Thomas M. Tucker, Judge, presiding.
Abishi C. Cunningham, Jr., Public Defender, of Chicago (Ingrid Gill, Appeal Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.
Anita M. Alvarez, Stat's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg and Yvette Loizon, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
JUSTICE PIERCE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.Justices Harris and Simon concurred in the judgment and opinion.
¶ 1 Defendant Don Juan Rios appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. Defendant argues that the circuit court erred in finding that it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief under the Habeas Corpus Act (Act) (735 ILCS 5/10-124 (West 2012)), where defendant asserted that his judgment of conviction was void because the judge who presided over his bench trial lacked the constitutionally mandated qualifications to be a judge. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
¶ 2 BACKGROUND
¶ 3 Defendant was charged with two counts of first degree murder, three counts of attempted first degree murder, and two counts of aggravated discharge of a firearm after he shot into a vehicle containing four passengers, killing one of them. On April 29, 2002, following a bench trial before then Judge Golniewicz, defendant was convicted of first degree murder and two counts of aggravated discharge arising out of events that occurred in May 1999. Shortly thereafter, the Judicial Inquiry Board (JIB) filed a complaint against the trial judge, who was then placed on administrative leave. Defendant was later sentenced by Judge Daniel Kelly to 45 years' imprisonment for first degree murder and two concurrent 10-year terms of imprisonment for aggravated discharge. People v. Rios, No. 1-04-0058 (Jan. 31, 2006) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). By order entered November 15, 2004, the JIB found, inter alia, that Golniewicz violated certain rules of judicial conduct in that he used deception to get elected to his judicial office and thereafter continued to violate residency requirements for sitting judges as set forth in relevant sections of the Election Code, which warranted his removal from office. In re Golniewicz, Ill. Ct. Comm'n, No. 02 CC 1 (Nov. 15, 2004).
¶ 4 Among the issues defendant raised on direct appeal, defendant alleged that his jury waiver was involuntary because Golniewicz failed to disclose that he was the subject of a JIB investigation at the time of defendant's trial. We rejected defendant's arguments and affirmed his conviction. Rios, slip op. at 30-33.
¶ 5 Thereafter, defendant filed a postconviction petition alleging that Golniewicz may have been biased because he was the subject of a JIB investigation and that the trial court erred in prohibiting him from conducting a posttrial investigation to uncover the potential bias. Defendant's petition was summarily dismissed by the trial court and this court affirmed. People v. Rios, No. 1-07-1668 (Dec. 22, 2008) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).
¶ 6 Defendant's successive postconviction petition was also summarily dismissed by the trial court. On appeal, defendant's counsel and the State filed an agreed motion for summary disposition asking this court to award defendant an additional 11 days of presentence credit. We granted the motion.
¶ 7 On December 21, 2011, defendant filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus relief that is the subject of the instant appeal. In the petition, defendant argued that his conviction and sentence are void because Golniewicz falsified his judicial application and fraudulently obtained his judgeship. Therefore, defendant argued, Golniewicz lacked the judicial authority to preside over his trial. Defendants attached an order issued by the Illinois Courts Commission removing Golniewicz from judicial office. In re Golniewicz, Ill. Ct. Comm'n, ...