Background
Marcus Williams was convicted by a jury in 1991 of two counts of first degree murder and received concurrent natural-life sentences. After his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal and he unsuccessfully pursued numerous collateral challenges, Williams filed a pro se petition in 2022 under section 2-1401 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.
Williams argued that the trial court never held a preliminary hearing, that the State obtained his indictment while he was being held under a void order, and that section 109-3.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was unconstitutional. He also challenged the victims’ failure to sign and swear to the preliminary-examination complaints. The circuit court found the petition untimely, concluded that part of the challenge was barred by res judicata, rejected the claims on the merits, and denied both the petition and Williams’s motion for summary judgment. It later denied his timely motion to reconsider.
The Court’s Holding
The Office of the State Appellate Defender moved to withdraw under Finley after concluding that the appeal presented no potentially meritorious issue. Counsel examined possible procedural error, possible exceptions to section 2-1401’s two-year filing deadline, and the merits of Williams’s underlying claims. Williams responded that the State’s late response entitled him to judgment, that a voidness challenge could be raised at any time, and that the statute governing the timing of an indictment was facially unconstitutional.
After independently reviewing the record, counsel’s motion and memorandum, and Williams’s response, the appellate court found no issue of arguable merit. It granted appointed counsel leave to withdraw and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment denying section 2-1401 relief.
Key Takeaways
- A petitioner does not automatically obtain judgment merely because the State responds to a section 2-1401 petition more than 30 days after filing.
- Labeling a claim as jurisdictional or asserting that a conviction is void does not supply arguable merit when the underlying constitutional and jurisdictional theories fail.
- After independently reviewing the record and the defendant’s objections, the appellate court may permit appointed counsel to withdraw under Finley when no arguably meritorious appellate issue exists.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the limited path available for attacking a decades-old criminal judgment through section 2-1401. Procedural defects preceding an indictment do not necessarily deprive an Illinois circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction, and recasting an earlier claim in constitutional terms may not avoid preclusion.
It also underscores that a Finley withdrawal does not rest solely on appointed counsel’s assessment: the appellate court independently reviews the record, counsel’s analysis, and the defendant’s response before deciding whether the appeal presents an arguable issue.