People v. Bealer

── People v. Bealer ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General NOTICE 2026 IL App (4th) 250669-U FILED This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is May 26, 2026 not precedent except in the NO. 4-25-0669 Carla Bender th limited circumstances allowed 4 District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Livingston County ANTONIO BEALER, ) No. 17CF185 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Jennifer H. Bauknecht, ) Judge Presiding. JUSTICE DOHERTY delivered the judgment of the court Justices Lannerd and Cavanagh concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: The trial court properly dismissed defendant’s postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. ¶2 Defendant Antonio Bealer was charged with and convicted of two felony offenses and sentenced concurrently to 28 years’ imprisonment on each charge; identification of the statutory basis for one of the charges is a central issue in this appeal and will be addressed below. This court affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. People v. Bealer, 2024 IL App (4th) 230406- U, ¶ 41, pet. for leave to appeal denied, No. 131217 (2025), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1974 (2025). ¶3 This appeal arises out of defendant’s petition pursuant to the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2024)), asserting numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court dismissed all claims as frivolous. Defendant now appeals two of the issues. First, he argues his appellate counsel on direct appeal failed to challenge the sentence on one of his convictions, as he contends it was a conviction of a Class 2 offense but that he received a sentence in excess of that available for such an offense. Second, he argues that appellate counsel failed to have the notice of appeal in his direct appeal stricken while a motion for reconsideration was still pending in the trial court, resulting in issues not being preserved for appellate review. ¶4 Because we find that defendant’s position on appeal is contradicted by the record, he failed to present an arguable basis for his claims of ineffective assistance. Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s first-stage dismissal of his postconviction petition. ¶5 I. BACKGROUND ¶6 A. The Charges ¶7 In 2017, a grand jury charged defendant with two counts under indictment. Under the subheading labeled “COUNT 1 AGGRAVATED BATTERY,” the indictment alleges: “defendant on or about February 13, 2017, in committing a battery, in violation of 12-3 of Act 5 of Chapter 720 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes [section 12-3 of the Criminal Code of 2012 (Code) (720 ILCS 5/12-3 (West 2016))], knowingly caused great bodily harm to Correctional Officer Zachary Sereg, in that the defendant sta