People v. Stoecker

2019 IL App (3d) 160781

126 N.E.3d 771

430 Ill.Dec. 683

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Ronald Lee STOECKER, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal No. 3-16-0781

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Opinion filed April 26, 2019

PRESIDING JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant, Ronald Lee Stoecker, appeals the dismissal of his petition for relief from judgment, arguing that (1) his due process rights were violated where the court did not give him a meaningful opportunity to respond to the motion to dismiss and the court held an ex parte hearing on the motion and (2) his counsel did not adequately represent him. We affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 In 1998, a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder ( 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2) (West 1996) ) and aggravated criminal sexual assault (id. § 12-14(a)(2) ). The evidence at trial established that 15-year-old Jean Humble left the Children's Home in Peoria, Illinois, at approximately 8:45 p.m. on May 29, 1996. Humble accepted a ride from defendant, who drove her to a remote area, sexually assaulted her, cut her throat, and left her. Humble walked to get help. The attack occurred within a mile of defendant's previous residence, which was vacant at the time. Humble arrived at the home of Sadie Streitmatter at 10:45 p.m. and told Streitmatter that she had been raped. Streitmatter called 911, and an ambulance transported Humble to a hospital in Peoria around 12 a.m. At the hospital, Humble was unable to speak but responded to questions by writing her responses. She indicated that her assailant was driving a red, four-door car. Humble died in the hospital 30 days later.

¶ 4 On the day of the attack, defendant had attended a class in Peoria at the Center for Prevention of Abuse from 6 to 8 p.m. A member of the class testified that he saw defendant leave in a red car. At 4:30 a.m. the morning after the attack, defendant purchased a plane ticket to Costa Rica in cash and left the country. He had told his boss earlier that month that if he got into any legal trouble he would flee to Costa Rica due to their lenient extradition rules. Eighteen months after the attack, defendant was apprehended in Costa Rica and extradited to Illinois.

¶ 5 Defendant's family helped him cover up the crime. The morning after the attack, an off-duty police officer saw defendant's brother removing and burning the interior of the red car. Defendant's family testified that the car was inoperable that day due to a blown engine, his brother was disassembling the car to sell it as scrap metal, and it was common for them to burn things on their property. Defendant's mother testified that the whole Stoecker family had planned to move to Costa Rica in January 1996. They knew that moving to Costa Rica would be a violation of defendant's parole, so he planned to leave after his weekly class so he had a week before the violation would be noticed. His family also testified that, on the day of the attack, defendant arrived home around 9 p.m. He was clean, and his demeanor was normal. His mother took him to the airport just after midnight.

¶ 6 The court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of life and 30 years' imprisonment. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal. People v. Stoecker , No. 3-98-0750, 308 Ill.App.3d 1107, 261 Ill.Dec. 905, 764 N.E.2d 196 (1999) (unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 ). Defendant then filed numerous unsuccessful postconviction petitions and petitions for relief from judgment. People v. Stoecker , 2015 IL App (3d) 140128-U, 2015 WL 9438551 ; People v. Stoecker , 2014 IL 115756, 381 Ill.Dec. 434, 10 N.E.3d 843 ; People v. Stoecker , 2014 IL App (3d) 130389-U, 2014 WL 720886 ; People v. Stoecker , 2012 IL App (3d) 120183-U, 2012 WL 7007447 ; People v. Stoecker , 384 Ill. App. 3d 289, 322 Ill.Dec. 884, 892 N.E.2d 131 (2008).

¶ 7 In 2016, defendant filed another pro se petition for relief from judgment, which is the subject of this appeal. See 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2016). In the pro se petition, defendant contended that his sentence to life imprisonment was void under Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and because the circuit court did not explicitly state on the record the aggravating circumstances necessitating natural life imprisonment. He argued that Apprendi now applied retroactively to his case based on the United States Supreme Court cases of Johnson v. United States , 576 U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), and Welch v. United States , 578 U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 194 L.Ed.2d 387 (2016). He further contended that he acted diligently in bringing his petition because he did "did not learn of the retroactivity of Johnson and Welch until June 2016, from a Jailhouse Lawyer."

¶ 8 On November 14, 2016, the State filed a motion to dismiss the petition, alleging that defendant's petition was not timely filed, as it was filed 16 years after judgment was entered and defendant did not provide a reasonable explanation for such delay. Moreover, the State said that the issues defendant sought to raise had previously been litigated. Appointed counsel was served with the motion to dismiss but filed no response. On November 18, 2016, the court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. There is no indication in the record that appointed counsel received notice of the hearing. The State was the only party present at the hearing. The court stated that defendant's presence was not required. The court did not reference appointed counsel at the hearing. The court dismissed the petition at the hearing, stating: "[T]he Court finds the People's motion and memorandum persuasive and correct as a matter of law." Defendant filed a pro se motion to reconsider, alleging, inter alia , that he was not given the opportunity to respond to the motion since the hearing was held only four days after the motion to dismiss was filed. Appointed counsel did not file any postjudgment motions. The court did not hold a hearing on defendant's motion to reconsider; instead, the court issued a written order denying the motion.

¶ 9 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 10 On appeal, defendant argues (1) that his due process rights were violated where the court granted the motion to dismiss without giving defendant a meaningful opportunity to respond and the court held an ex parte hearing on the motion with only the State present and (2) that appointed counsel inadequately represented defendant where he failed to file, appear, or provide any representation to defendant. We find that, even accepting defendant's argument that his due process rights were violated, any such violation would be harmless error, as the deficiencies in the petition could not be cured by remand. As the deficiencies in the petition could not be cured, defense counsel acted appropriately in this situation.

¶ 11 "We review de novo a claim asserting the denial of due process ( People v. Bradley , 2017 IL App (4th) 150527, ¶ 13, 416 Ill.Dec. 724, 85 N.E.3d 591 ), as we do the dismissal of a section 2-1401 petition ( People v. Vincent , 226 Ill. 2d 1, 18, 312 Ill.Dec. 617, 871 N.E.2d 17 (2007) )." People v. Rucker , 2018 IL App (2d) 150855, ¶ 16, ––– N.E.3d ––––. The constitutional right to procedural due process entitles an individual to "the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." In re D.W. , 214 Ill. 2d 289, 316, 292 Ill.Dec. 937, 827 N.E.2d 466 (2005). "[T]he fundamental right to the opportunity to be heard ‘ "has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is pending." ’ " Rucker , 2018 IL App (2d) 150855, ¶ 17, ––– N.E.3d –––– (quoting BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Mitchell , 2014 IL 116311, ¶ 28, 379 Ill.Dec. 85, 6 N.E.3d 162, quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. , 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) ). However,

" ‘[a]utomatic reversal is only required where an error is deemed "structural," i.e. , a systemic error which serves to "erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of the defendant's trial." ’ People v. Glasper , 234 Ill. 2d 173, 197-98 [334 Ill.Dec. 575, 917 N.E.2d 401] (2009) (quoting People v. Herron , 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186 [294 Ill.Dec. 55, 830 N.E.2d 467] (2005) ). * * * "[M]ost errors of constitutional dimension are subject to a harmless error analysis. Only those constitutional violations that are ‘structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism,’ such as total deprivation of the right to trial counsel or absence of an impartial trier of fact, are per se error that necessitate remandment for a new proceeding." People v. Shaw , 186 Ill. 2d 301, 344-45 [239 Ill.Dec. 311, 713 N.E.2d 1161] (1999) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante , 499 U.S. 279, 309 [111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302] (1991) ).’ " People v. Sheley , 2017 IL App (3d) 140659, ¶ 16, 418 Ill.Dec. 335, 90 N.E.3d 493.

"Harmless-error analysis is ‘based on the notion that a defendant's interest in an error-free trial must be balanced against societal interests in finality and judicial economy.’ " People v. Mullins , 242 Ill. 2d 1, 23, 350 Ill.Dec. 819, 949 N.E.2d 611 (2011) (quoting People v. Simms , 121 Ill. 2d 259, 275-76, 117 Ill.Dec. 147, 520 N.E.2d 308 (1988) ). When conducting harmless error analysis, we determine whether the outcome would have been the same regardless of the error. See id. We determine harmless error based on the particular facts of each case, considering the record as a whole. People v. Howard , 147 Ill. 2d 103, 148, 167 Ill.Dec. 914, 588 N.E.2d 1044 (1991).

¶ 12 Even if we were to accept defendant's argument that his due process rights were violated, we find that any error in failing to allow defendant to respond to the State's motion to dismiss his petition does not rise to the level of structural error and is, therefore, subject to harmless error analysis. Defendant's petition is without merit. All of the...