Background
DeJuan Pratt was convicted in 2015 of two counts of first degree murder, two counts of armed robbery, and aggravated arson. He received natural-life sentences for the murders and consecutive 30-year terms for the remaining offenses. The appellate court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal.
In 2024, Pratt filed a pro se petition under section 2-1401 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, alleging that the State permitted false testimony about cell-phone records and withheld those records in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The circuit court dismissed the petition on September 27, 2024. Pratt’s motion to reconsider was received by the circuit clerk on November 1, although its notice of filing stated that he had placed it in institutional mail on October 25. After the circuit court dismissed the reconsideration motion as untimely, Pratt placed his notice of appeal in institutional mail on January 1, 2025.
Appointed appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Pennsylvania v. Finley, concluding that the appeal lacked arguable merit and that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction. Pratt responded by asking the court to remand so he could recast his filing as a petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed Pratt’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because a section 2-1401 proceeding is civil, Pratt had 30 days after the September 27 dismissal to file either a notice of appeal or a qualifying postjudgment motion.
Although Pratt’s notice stated that he mailed his motion to reconsider within that period, he could not invoke the prison mailbox rule because his certification did not state that its assertions were “true and correct,” as required by section 1-109 and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 12(b)(6). His statement that it was made under penalty of perjury did not substantially comply with the certification requirement, and his pro se status did not excuse the defect.
The motion therefore was filed when the clerk received it on November 1, after the 30-day deadline, and it did not toll the time to appeal. Pratt’s later notice of appeal was consequently untimely, leaving the appellate court without jurisdiction to consider the merits or order the requested remand.
Key Takeaways
- A timely notice of appeal is necessary to confer appellate jurisdiction in a section 2-1401 proceeding.
- An incarcerated litigant seeking the benefit of the mailbox rule must substantially comply with the required certification, including stating that the certified assertions are “true and correct.”
- An untimely postjudgment motion does not extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that technical defects in a prison-mail certification can determine appellate jurisdiction. Merely invoking the penalties of perjury is insufficient when the certification omits the required representation that its statements are true and correct.
For attorneys handling pro se or incarcerated litigants’ filings, the order highlights the need to verify strict compliance with the mailbox-rule certification requirements before relying on an institutional mailing date.