Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division
from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 07 CR 17223
Honorable Alfredo Maldonado, Judge Presiding.
Attorneys for Appellant: James E. Chadd, Patricia Mysza, and
Maggie A. Heim, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of
Chicago, for appellant.
Attorneys for Appellee: Kimberly M. Foxx, State's
Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg and Brian K. Hodes,
Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
PRESIDING JUSTICE MIKVA delivered the judgment of the court,
with opinion. Justices Cunningham and Harris concurred in the
judgment and opinion.
1 In this appeal, defendant Recardo Johnson argues that the
circuit court erred in summarily dismissing his pro
se petition for relief pursuant to the Post-Conviction
Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 (West 2016)) on the basis
of standing. For the following reasons, we affirm.
2 I. BACKGROUND
3 In October 2007, Mr. Johnson pleaded guilty in case No. 07
CR 17223 to the offense of unlawful restraint (see 720 ILCS
5/10-3 (West 2006)) in exchange for a sentence of two
years' imprisonment. Before Mr. Johnson entered his plea,
the court informed him:
"Mr. Johnson, you are charged with the offense of
unlawful restraint ***. That in the State of
Illinois is what is referred to as a Class 4 felony, which
means it's punishable by 1 to 3 years in the Illinois
State Penitentiary. If I find you have been found guilty of
the same or greater class felony within the last ten years,
the maximum penitentiary time in this case can increase all
the way up to 6 years.
In addition, upon your release from the penitentiary there
would be a period of 1 year mandatory supervised release.
That's sometimes referred to as parole."
4 Upon entering his plea, Mr. Johnson said he understood he
was giving up certain rights by pleading guilty, including
his right to plead not guilty and have a jury trial. Mr.
Johnson said he was not threatened or promised anything in
exchange for his plea.
5 The State provided a factual basis for the plea, the
circuit court found that Mr. Johnson pleaded guilty to the
charge freely and voluntarily, and the court accepted the
plea. The court then sentenced Mr. Johnson to two years in
prison and admonished him of his right to a direct appeal.
Mr. Johnson did not avail himself of that right.
6 On July 18, 2016, Mr. Johnson, pro se, moved the
circuit court to file a late postconviction petition. In the
petition, Mr. Johnson said that he was presently
incarcerated, he had been incarcerated for approximately one
year, and the lateness of his filing was not due to his
culpable negligence. Mr. Johnson filed his petition under
case No. 07 CR 1722301, the case in which he had pleaded
guilty to unlawful restraint in October 2007. Mr. Johnson
argued in his petition that the age of the victim in his case
was never stated in court, the circuit court never informed
him that he would need to register under the Child Murderer
and Violent Offender Against Youth Registration Act (Violent
Offender Act) (see 730 ILCS 154/1 et seq. (West
2006)), and that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing
to tell him he would need to register under the Violent
7 On September 30, 2016, the circuit court summarily
dismissed Mr. Johnson's petition. The court noted that
Mr. Johnson had not withdrawn his 2007 guilty plea or
appealed that conviction and had already served the term of
imprisonment and mandatory supervised release (MSR) to which
he was sentenced in case No. 07 CR 1722301. The circuit court
noted that at the time he filed his petition, Mr. Johnson was
independently serving "a term of two years of
imprisonment for failure to register" under the Violent
Offender Act in case No. 14 CR 1312801. The circuit
court's opinion indicated that it obtained this
information from the website for the Illinois Department of
Corrections. Citing People v. Pack,224 Ill.2d 144,
150 (2007), the circuit court stated that the Act "and
its remedies are not available to petitioners who have
completed their sentences and merely seek to purge their
criminal records." The court found that, because Mr.