Motion to Vacate Judgment (735 ILCS 5/2-1401)

Our legal experts can assist you in bringing your family members to the United States and help you navigate the complex immigration process.A Motion to Vacate Judgment under 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 is typically a civil remedy that allows parties to seek relief from a final judgment or order after the time for direct appeal or post-judgment motions has passed. Although it is part of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, it applies to criminal cases as well. If a judgment in a criminal case has become final (e.g., the direct appeal period or other standard post-judgment remedies are exhausted), a defendant may petition the court to vacate that judgment on limited grounds, such as newly discovered evidence, fraud, or other fundamental legal errors.

n People v. Vincent, the Illinois Supreme Court clarified the procedural requirements and scope of a 2-1401 petition in the criminal context. The Court explained:

• Nature of the Petition: Despite its origins in civil procedure, a 2-1401 petition can be used to challenge criminal judgments when standard routes—like direct appeal or other post-conviction proceedings—are no longer available or insufficient.
• Court’s Approach: The Court may dismiss a 2-1401 petition if it determines on its face that the petition fails to state a legal or factual basis for relief. Likewise, if the State responds with a dispositive defense (e.g., that the petition is untimely or that the claims have already been litigated), the court can dismiss the petition without an evidentiary hearing.We can help you obtain work visas and permanent residency for your employees and make sure your business stays in compliance with immigration laws.

1. Newly Discovered Evidence
   
   • Definition: Evidence not available at the time of trial or sentencing and not discoverable through due diligence.
   • Impact: The new evidence must be of such a nature that it would have likely changed the outcome of the trial had it been presented (e.g., new DNA tests, a confession from another individual, or proof that a key witness recanted).

1. Fraud, Duress, or Other Misconduct
   
   • Examples: Situations where law enforcement or prosecuting authorities withheld exculpatory evidence (Brady violations), engaged in falsification or intimidation, or other forms of misconduct that prevented a fair proceeding.
   • Legal Effect: If the defendant can show the judgment was obtained through fraud or misconduct and that this had a substantial impact on the outcome, the court may grant relief.

1. Fundamental Error or Void Judgment
   
   • Voidness: In some instances, a judgment may be void if the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction, or if it imposed a sentence beyond its statutory authority.
   • Legal Error: There may be fundamental legal defects in the conviction process (though these are often addressed through direct appeal or post-conviction petitions rather than 2-1401)

A petitioner must typically show they exercised “due diligence” in discovering the new evidence or legal issue. They also must establish that they diligently filed the 2-1401 petition upon discovering the grounds for relief.

• Post-Conviction Petition (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq.): In Illinois criminal cases, a Post-Conviction Petition is generally the primary method to raise constitutional issues that were not or could not be raised on direct appeal. However, if the time window or procedural requirements for a post-conviction petition have passed, or if the claim does not neatly fall within those parameters, a 2-1401 petition may be used.
• Habeas Corpus (735 ILCS 5/10-101 et seq.): Habeas corpus is another post-judgment remedy used primarily to challenge the legality of the current detention or custody arrangement. However, a 2-1401 petition is broader and can raise issues like fraud, newly discovered evidence, or voidness that do not necessarily go directly to the immediate legality of custody.
• Section 2-1401 vs. Section 2-1401(f) (Void Judgments): Subsection (f) addresses specifically the issue of a void judgment. This is an important distinction because a claim that a judgment is void can be brought at any time, free from the two-year limitation. Conversely, other 2-1401 petitions (based on newly discovered evidence or fraud) have stricter time constraints.

• Scenario: An incarcerated individual convicted of armed robbery in 2010 recently obtains undisclosed DNA test results from the crime scene showing that none of the recovered evidence matches the defendant’s DNA. The defendant asserts this evidence was never disclosed and could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence.
  
  • The attorney files a 2-1401 petition explaining the late discovery of DNA results and their potential to exonerate the defendant.
  • The State’s response might contest the petition based on timing (if more than two years have passed since the conviction) or argue that the evidence is not material. If the petitioner shows good cause—e.g., the results were actively concealed by the prosecution or newly analyzed with modern techniques—and that the evidence is material, the court could grant an evidentiary hearing.
• Remedy Sought:
  
  1. Vacatur of the Judgment: If the court determines that the newly discovered evidence fundamentally undermines the reliability of the verdict, it may vacate the judgment.
  2. New Trial or Dismissal: If the evidence conclusively proves innocence, the State may choose to dismiss the charges altogether. If the evidence raises significant doubt but is not indisputable, the court might order a new trial.

1. Immediate Dismissal: If the petition fails to allege a valid basis for relief or is untimely without any exception, the court may dismiss it.
2. Evidentiary Hearing: If the allegations present a prima facie basis for relief, the court may hold a hearing to assess the credibility and impact of the new evidence or alleged fraud.
3. Granted Relief: If the court finds the petitioner meets the statutory and case law criteria, it may vacate the judgment or grant other appropriate relief (new trial, resentencing, etc.).
4. Denial: If the court concludes that the new evidence would not have affected the original verdict or that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, it will deny the motion.

1. Missing the Two-Year Limit: Petitioners often struggle with the statutory deadline. Without a recognized exception (e.g., fraud, legal disability, or voidness), the petition will likely be dismissed.
2. Failure to Show Due Diligence: Courts often deny petitions if the petitioner cannot demonstrate they pursued the new evidence or legal grounds promptly.
3. Raising Issues Already Litigated: A 2-1401 petition is not a second appeal or a way to rehash arguments that could have been presented earlier. Courts may dismiss on grounds of res judicata if the issue was already decided.
4. Misunderstanding “Void” vs. “Voidable”: Only a truly void judgment can be challenged at any time. A judgment is not automatically void simply because of alleged errors or irregularities; it must be shown that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or acted outside its authority.

A Motion to Vacate Judgment Under 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 is a powerful but narrow tool available in both civil and criminal contexts in Illinois. When successfully invoked, it can vacate a final judgment based on newly discovered evidence, fraud, or fundamental error. The motion is subject to strict procedural rules, including a two-year limit (unless an exception applies) and a requirement that the petitioner exercise due diligence.

In criminal cases, the motion overlaps to some degree with post-conviction proceedings, but it remains a distinct remedy that can address issues outside the typical scope of a direct appeal or post-conviction petition. Because of its procedural complexity and potentially high stakes—both for petitioners and the State—individuals should seek legal counsel to ensure all statutory requirements are met and to maximize the likelihood of obtaining relief.