from Circuit Court of Douglas County. No. 07CF64. Honorable
Michael G. Carroll, Judge Presiding.
J. Pelletier, Jacqueline L. Bullard, and Susan M. Wilham, all
of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Springfield, for
P. Nolan, State's Attorney, of Tuscola (Patrick Delfino,
David J. Robinson, and Perry L. Miller, all of State's
Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for
APPLETON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Knecht and Holder White concurred in the judgment
[¶1] Defendant, Reginald J. Robinson,
through his appointed counsel, filed an amended petition for
postconviction relief. The State moved to dismiss the amended
petition on the ground of untimeliness (see 725 ILCS
5/122-1(c) (West 2008)) and the trial court granted the
motion. Defendant appeals. In his view, the court should
have excused the lateness of his petition because he "
allege[d] facts showing that the delay was not due to his ***
culpable negligence." Id.
[¶2] Specifically, the fact defendant
alleged was that his counsel on direct appeal had failed to
notify him of the issuance of our decision on direct appeal.
In our de novo review (see People v.
Coleman, 183 Ill.2d 366, 378, 701 N.E.2d 1063, 233
Ill.Dec. 789 (1998)), we are unconvinced that this fact shows
a lack of culpable negligence on defendant's part. We are
unconvinced because defendant provides us no analysis of the
statute of limitation, section 122-1(c) of the
Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1(c) (West
2008)), and unless we know, from such an analysis, what
triggered the running of the period of limitation (whatever
that period was), we are in no position to decide whether
defendant's unawareness of our decision on direct appeal
serves as a valid excuse for the admitted lateness of his
postconviction petition. Therefore, we affirm the trial
[¶4] On December 11, 2007, on the basis of
stipulated evidence in a bench trial, the trial court found
defendant guilty of unlawful trafficking in cannabis (720
ILCS 550/5.1 (West 2006)).
[¶5] On February 14, 2008, the trial court
sentenced defendant to 20 years' imprisonment and fines
[¶6] On February 11, 2009, on direct appeal,
we affirmed the trial court's judgment. People v.
Robinson, No. 4-08-0353, slip order at 2 (Feb. 11, 2009)
(unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).
[¶7] Defendant did not petition the Supreme
Court of Illinois for leave to appeal.
[¶8] On July 26, 2010, defendant filed a
pro se petition for postconviction relief. The trial
court appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition.
According to the amended petition, the " delay" in
the filing of the petition was due to appellate counsel's
failure to notify defendant of the issuance of our decision
on direct appeal.
[¶9] On January 17, 2012, the trial court
granted the State's motion to dismiss the amended
postconviction petition on the ground of untimeliness. See
725 ILCS 5/122-1(c) (West 2008).
[¶10] Defendant appealed, and on June 19,
2013, we remanded the case for the limited purpose of
demonstrating compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule
651(c) (eff. Dec. 1, 1984). People v. Robinson, 2013
IL App. (4th) 120254-U, ¶ 34.
[¶11] On remand, postconviction counsel
filed an amended certificate demonstrating compliance with
Rule 651(c). The dismissal on the ground of untimeliness
[¶12] This appeal followed.