nonfrivolous claim in Illinois

2022If postconviction counsel can be - 14 - 2022 IL App (2d) 210008 deemed unreasonable for refusing to include a nonfrivolous claim, as in Johnson, it follows that counsel can be deemed unreasonable for failing to properly allege a nonfrivolous claim. ¶ 33 As noted above, given the merits of the sentencing issue, it is arguable that appellate counsel’s failure to raise the issue on appeal fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.

2022If postconviction counsel can be - 14 - 2022 IL App (2d) 210008 deemed unreasonable for refusing to include a nonfrivolous claim, as in Johnson, it follows that counsel can be deemed unreasonable for failing to properly allege a nonfrivolous claim. ¶ 33 As noted above, given the merits of the sentencing issue, it is arguable that appellate counsel’s failure to raise the issue on appeal fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.

2024See e.g., People v. Malone, 2017 IL App (3d) 140165, ¶ 10 ; People v. Dixon, 2018 IL App (3d) 150630, ¶ 22 ; People v. Pace, 386.

2024See, e.g., People v. Malone, 2017 IL App (3d) 140165, ¶ 10 ; People v. Dixon, 2018 IL App (3d) 150630, ¶ 22 ; People v. Pace, 386 Ill.

2023Downs, 2017 IL App (2d) 121156-C, ¶¶ 49-50 . - 45 - However, under Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , Krankel counsel would not be constitutionally ineffective for not presenting a nonfrivolous claim unless the defendant could show a reasonable probability exists the outcome of the proceedings would have been different absent Krankel counsel’s deficient performance.

2020Where a claim of ineffectiveness may be disposed of on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, “that course should be followed.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 . ¶ 19 Defendant argues that his petition set forth a nonfrivolous claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not reviewing the DNA evidence tendered by the State.

2006Hutcherson, 342 Ill.

2006Hutcherson, 342 Ill.

2002Petitioner now argues that: (1) the postconviction court erred in summarily dismissing his pro se petition where it included a nonfrivolous claim of the denial of a fair and impartial trial in that a juror had previously worked with defendant in the housekeeping department of the Hyatt Regency O'Hare Hotel; (2) the postconviction court erred in summarily dismissing his pro se petition where it included a nonfrivolous claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue that petitioner was denied a fair and impartial trial on appeal; (3) the consecutive, extended-term sen

2002Petitioner now argues that: (1) the postconviction court erred in summarily dismissing his pro se petition where it included a nonfrivolous claim of the denial of a fair and impartial trial in that a juror had previously worked with defendant in the housekeeping department of the Hyatt Regency O'Hare Hotel; (2) the postconviction court erred in summarily dismissing his pro se petition where it included a nonfrivolous claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue that petitioner was denied a fair and impartial trial on appeal; (3) the consecutive, extended-term sen

2026“Relief under section 2-1401 is predicated upon proof, by a preponderance of evidence, of a defense or claim that would have precluded entry of the judgment in the original action and diligence in both discovering the defense or claim and presenting the petition.” People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1 , 7-8 (2007).

2026ANALYSIS ¶ 10 On appeal, OSAD contends it considered raising several issues on appeal, which -3- we discuss in further detail below, but ultimately concluded that doing so would be pointless considering it can raise no colorable argument defendant presented a nonfrivolous claim in his section 2-1401 petition for relief from judgment. ¶ 11 A. Section 2-1401 Petitions for Relief From Judgment ¶ 12 “Section 2-1401 of the Code constitutes a comprehensive statutory procedure authorizing a trial court to vacate or modify a final order or judgment in civil and criminal proceedings.” People v. Thompso

2025Counsel’s certificate substantially complied with the requirements delineated in Rule 651(c) and comported with counsel’s earlier assertion to the court that counsel had asked defendant about “witnesses and different information,” but defendant “basically [j]ust state[d] the same thing he state[d] in his [postconviction petition].” Accordingly, we presume that postconviction counsel provided reasonable assistance (Custer, 2019 IL 123339, ¶ 32 ), and defendant bears the burden to rebut this presumption (Profit, 2012 IL App (1st) 101307, ¶ 19 ). ¶ 24 Defendant contends that counsel was unreasona

2025Counsel’s certificate substantially complied with the requirements delineated in Rule 651(c) and comported with counsel’s earlier assertion to the court that counsel had asked defendant about “witnesses and different information,” but defendant “basically [j]ust state[d] the same thing he state[d] in his [postconviction petition].” Accordingly, we presume that postconviction counsel provided reasonable assistance (Custer, 2019 IL 123339, ¶ 32 ), and defendant bears the burden to rebut this presumption (Profit, 2012 IL App (1st) 101307, ¶ 19 ). ¶ 24 Defendant contends that counsel was unreasona

2025“A [trial court] has a duty to answer the jury’s question if clarification is requested, the original instructions are incomplete, the jurors are confused, or the question concerns a point of law arising from the facts over which doubt or confusion exists.” People v. Hasselbring, 2014 IL App (4th) 131128, ¶ 47 .

2024People v. Blanchard, 2015 IL App (1st) 132281, ¶ 15 , 43 N.E.3d 1077 . ¶ 16 Specifically, defendant contends his sole postconviction argument lacked legal merit and thus counsel’s only options were to amend the petition to state a nonfrivolous claim or withdraw as counsel.

2024People v. Blanchard, 2015 IL App (1st) 132281, ¶ 15 , 43 N.E.3d 1077 . ¶ 16 Specifically, defendant contends his sole postconviction argument lacked legal merit and thus counsel’s only options were to amend the petition to state a nonfrivolous claim or withdraw as counsel.

2022Under Strickland, “a defendant must show that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Dupree, 2018 IL 122307, ¶ 44 . ¶ 88 Postconviction counsel can be deemed unreasonable for failing to include, or to properly allege, a nonfrivolous claim in a postconviction petition.

2022Johnson, 2018 IL 122227, ¶ 24 ; People v. Delgado, 2022 IL App (2d) 210008, ¶ 32 .

2021Id. -6- ¶ 22 On review before the supreme court, the defendant argued his postconviction petition should not have been dismissed at the first stage of postconviction proceedings because it raised “a nonfrivolous claim that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and appeal.” Id. at 247 .

2021Id. -6- ¶ 22 On review before the supreme court, the defendant argued his postconviction petition should not have been dismissed at the first stage of postconviction proceedings because it raised “a nonfrivolous claim that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and appeal.” Id. at 247 .

2018This remains steadfast - 26 ­ 2018 IL App (2d) 150565 regardless whether there is an error in the judgment for fees and costs.

1990Ed. 2d 987, 995 , 103 S. Ct. 3308, 3314 ); (6) whether to forgo cross-examination (Taylor v. Illinois (1988), 484 U.S. 400, 418 , 98 L.

1990Ed. 2d 783 , 801 & n.34, 102 S. Ct. 1558 , 1572 & n.34); (5) whether to include a particular nonfrivolous claim among the issues briefed and argued on appeal (Jones, 463 U.S. 745, 754 , 77 L.

1990Ed. 2d 987, 995 , 103 S. Ct. 3308, 3314 ); (6) whether to forgo cross-examination (Taylor v. Illinois (1988), 484 U.S. 400, 418 , 98 L.

1990Ed. 2d 783 , 801 & n.34, 102 S. Ct. 1558 , 1572 & n.34); (5) whether to include a particular nonfrivolous claim among the issues briefed and argued on appeal (Jones, 463 U.S. 745, 754 , 77 L.

1990Ed. 2d 783 , 801 & n.34, 102 S. Ct. 1558 , 1572 & n.34); (5) whether to include a particular nonfrivolous claim among the issues briefed and argued on appeal (Jones, 463 U.S. 745, 754 , 77 L.