Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
24 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2026 13 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Suarezgreen2 sentences2026Accordingly, the Suarez court refused “to hold that noncompliance with Rule 651(c) may be excused on the basis of harmless error.” 224 Ill. 2d at 52 . ¶ 20 Likewise, Justice McLaren’s special concurrence in Nitz (see 2011 IL App (2d) 100031, ¶¶ 24-25 ), although expressed in terms of mootness, effectively imposes the same “no harm, no foul” rule, and so do the decisions in Kirkpatrick (see 2012 IL App (2d) 100898, ¶ 27 (“Once the State moved to dismiss on the merits and did not challenge the alleged procedural defects, and once the trial court conducted a hearing, during which neither party ra 2025Noncompliance with the duties in Rule 651(c), including the duty to make any amendments to the defendant’s pro se petition that are necessary for an adequate presentation of the defendant’s claims, “may not be excused on the basis of harmless error.” Id. at 52 . “ ‘The filing of a Rule 651(c) certificate gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that post-conviction counsel provided reasonable assistance.’ [Citation.] ‘It is defendant’s burden to overcome this presumption by demonstrating his attorney’s failure to substantially comply with the duties mandated by Rule 651(c).’ [Citation.]” Collins | 8 | 16 |
People v. Turnergreen2 sentences2025In other words, “[p]ostconviction counsel’s noncompliance with Rule 651(c) may not be excused on the basis of harmless error.” Id.; Turner, 187 Ill. 2d at 416 (reviewing courts “will not speculate whether the trial court would have dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing if counsel had adequately performed his duties under Rule 651(c)”). 2025That is the case because “[p]ostconviction counsel’s noncompliance with Rule 651(c) may not be excused on the basis of harmless error.” Id.; see also 11 Turner, 187 Ill. 2d at 416 (reviewing court “will not speculate whether the trial court would have dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing if counsel had adequately performed his duties under Rule 651(c)”). | 4 | 4 |
People v. Addisongreen2 sentences2025“The defendant may do so by, inter alia, demonstrating that postconviction counsel did not make all necessary amendments to the pro se petition. [Citations.] This includes making amendments - 10 - 1-23-1640 that are necessary to overcome procedural bars. [Citation.]” Addison, 2023 IL 127119, ¶ 21 . 2024Accordingly, we decline to hold that noncompliance with Rule 651(c) may be excused on the basis of harmless error.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Addison, 2023 IL 127119, ¶ 33 (quoting Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d at 51-52 ). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Landagreen2 sentences2025The court went on to distinguish the situation in Suarez from one in which postconviction counsel did file a Rule 651(c) certificate, “thus creating a rebuttable presumption that she complied with the requirements of the rule.” Id. ¶ 30; see also Landa, 2020 IL App (1st) 170851, ¶ 58 (agreeing with Gallano that the Suarez statement at issue applies when counsel fails to file a certificate). 2023See, e.g., People v. Landa, 2020 IL App (1st) 170851, ¶¶ 56-58 ; People v. Gallano, 2019 IL App (1st) 160570, ¶¶ 29-30 ; People v. Profit, 2012 IL App (1st) 101307, ¶¶ 20-23 . | 2 | 2 |
People v. Turnergreen1 sentence2026See 2012 IL App (2d) 100819, ¶¶ 35-42 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kirkpatrickgreen1 sentence2026Accordingly, the Suarez court refused “to hold that noncompliance with Rule 651(c) may be excused on the basis of harmless error.” 224 Ill. 2d at 52 . ¶ 20 Likewise, Justice McLaren’s special concurrence in Nitz (see 2011 IL App (2d) 100031, ¶¶ 24-25 ), although expressed in terms of mootness, effectively imposes the same “no harm, no foul” rule, and so do the decisions in Kirkpatrick (see 2012 IL App (2d) 100898, ¶ 27 (“Once the State moved to dismiss on the merits and did not challenge the alleged procedural defects, and once the trial court conducted a hearing, during which neither party ra | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hayesgreen1 sentence2025Noncompliance with the duties in Rule 651(c), including the duty to make any amendments to the defendant’s pro se petition that are necessary for an adequate presentation of the defendant’s claims, “may not be excused on the basis of harmless error.” Id. at 52 . “ ‘The filing of a Rule 651(c) certificate gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that post-conviction counsel provided reasonable assistance.’ [Citation.] ‘It is defendant’s burden to overcome this presumption by demonstrating his attorney’s failure to substantially comply with the duties mandated by Rule 651(c).’ [Citation.]” Collins | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Russell
green
2 sentences2023People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37, 51-52 (2007); Russell, 2016 IL App (3d) 140386, ¶ 12 . 2023People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37, 51-52 (2007); Russell, 2016 IL App (3d) 140386, ¶ 12 . | 3 | 2021–2023 |
People v. Gallano
green
2 sentences2025As the First District explained in People v. Gallano, “In Suarez, the supreme court found that postconviction counsel failed to comply with Rule 651(c) where he did not file a Rule 651(c) certificate and the record did not show that he consulted with defendant as required by the rule. [Citation.] In this context, Suarez held that remand is required where counsel failed to fulfill the Rule 651(c) duties ‘regardless of whether the claims raised in the petition had merit’ and that noncompliance with the rule cannot be excused on the basis of harmless error.” 2019 IL App (1st) 160570, ¶ 29 . 2023See, e.g., People v. Landa, 2020 IL App (1st) 170851, ¶¶ 56-58 ; People v. Gallano, 2019 IL App (1st) 160570, ¶¶ 29-30 ; People v. Profit, 2012 IL App (1st) 101307, ¶¶ 20-23 . | 2 | 2023–2025 |
People v. Oakes
neutral
2 sentences2007In People v. Oakes, 355 Ill. 2007In People v. Oakes, 355 Ill. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Sargent
green
2 sentences2007In affirming the dismissal of defendant’s petition on the basis of harmless error, the appellate court followed the reasoning of People v. Sargent, 357 Ill. 2007In affirming the dismissal of defendant’s petition on the basis of harmless error, the appellate court followed the reasoning of People v. Sargent, 357 Ill. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Nitz
green
1 sentence2026Accordingly, the Suarez court refused “to hold that noncompliance with Rule 651(c) may be excused on the basis of harmless error.” 224 Ill. 2d at 52 . ¶ 20 Likewise, Justice McLaren’s special concurrence in Nitz (see 2011 IL App (2d) 100031, ¶¶ 24-25 ), although expressed in terms of mootness, effectively imposes the same “no harm, no foul” rule, and so do the decisions in Kirkpatrick (see 2012 IL App (2d) 100898, ¶ 27 (“Once the State moved to dismiss on the merits and did not challenge the alleged procedural defects, and once the trial court conducted a hearing, during which neither party ra | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Collins
green
1 sentence2025Noncompliance with the duties in Rule 651(c), including the duty to make any amendments to the defendant’s pro se petition that are necessary for an adequate presentation of the defendant’s claims, “may not be excused on the basis of harmless error.” Id. at 52 . “ ‘The filing of a Rule 651(c) certificate gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that post-conviction counsel provided reasonable assistance.’ [Citation.] ‘It is defendant’s burden to overcome this presumption by demonstrating his attorney’s failure to substantially comply with the duties mandated by Rule 651(c).’ [Citation.]” Collins | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Profit
green
1 sentence2023See, e.g., People v. Landa, 2020 IL App (1st) 170851, ¶¶ 56-58 ; People v. Gallano, 2019 IL App (1st) 160570, ¶¶ 29-30 ; People v. Profit, 2012 IL App (1st) 101307, ¶¶ 20-23 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Wallace
green
1 sentence2021“We review de novo the question of whether counsel provided the reasonable level of assistance required.” Wallace, 2018 IL App (5th) 140385, ¶ 31 . ¶ 50 Here, postconviction counsel filed a Rule 651(c) certificate stating that she had consulted with defendant in person and by mail to ascertain defendant’s constitutional claims, examined the court file, and “made any amendments to the petition filed pro se that [were] necessary for an adequate presentation of [defendant’s] contentions.” Defendant does not challenge the validity of the certificate. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.