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.
21 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2026 12 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. Griffithgreen2 sentences2020People v. Griffith, 158 Ill. 2d 476, 497 , 634 N.E.2d 1069, 1079 (1994). ¶ 39 In this case, we find defendant has failed to overcome this presumption, and we find no error. 2020People v. Griffith, 158 Ill. 2d 476, 497 , 634 N.E.2d 1069, 1079 (1994). ¶ 39 In this case, we find defendant has failed to overcome this presumption, and we find no error. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Perkinsgreen1 sentence2020See Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d at 52 (“giv[ing] effect to counsel’s official representation that he complied with Rule 651(c)” since “nothing in the record contradicts counsel’s certificate”); Wallace, 2016 IL App (1st) 142758, ¶ 26 (holding that a “facially valid” certificate pursuant to Rule 651(c) raises a presumption that postconviction counsel “acted reasonably” and that, on appeal, the burden is on the defendant to overcome this presumption by “demonstrat[ing] his attorney’s failure to substantially comply with the duties mandated by Rule 651(c)” (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wallacegreen2 sentences2020See Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d at 52 (“giv[ing] effect to counsel’s official representation that he complied with Rule 651(c)” since “nothing in the record contradicts counsel’s certificate”); Wallace, 2016 IL App (1st) 142758, ¶ 26 (holding that a “facially valid” certificate pursuant to Rule 651(c) raises a presumption that postconviction counsel “acted reasonably” and that, on appeal, the burden is on the defendant to overcome this presumption by “demonstrat[ing] his attorney’s failure to substantially comply with the duties mandated by Rule 651(c)” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2020Unless the postconviction counsel moved to withdraw (see Kuehner, 2015 IL 117695, ¶ 21 ), defendant must affirmatively establish that the omission of a pro se claim was unreasonable (see Wallace, 2016 IL App (1st) 142758 , - 15 - ¶ 26). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Richardsongreen1 sentence2011See People v. Richardson, 382 Ill. | 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. Jones
green
2 sentences2024“The filing of a Rule 651(c) certificate gives rise to a presumption that postconviction counsel provided reasonable assistance during second-stage proceedings under the Act. [Citation.] It falls on the defendant to overcome that presumption by demonstrating counsel’s failure to substantially comply with the duties mandated by Rule 651(c).” People v. Jones, 2011 IL App (1st) 092529, ¶ 23 . ¶ 13 Defendant relies on People v. Dixon, 2018 IL App (3d) 150630 , in support of his argument that postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance. 2022“It falls on the defendant to overcome that presumption by demonstrating counsel’s failure to substantially comply with the duties mandated by Rule 651(c).” Jones, 2011 IL App (1st) 092529 , ¶ 23. ¶ 21 With respect to amendments, the duty of postconviction counsel, again, is to “ma[k]e any amendments to the petitions filed pro se that are necessary for an adequate presentation of petitioner’s contentions.” (Emphasis added.) Ill. | 8 | 2020–2024 |
People v. Addison
green
2 sentences2026People v. Addison, 2023 IL 127119, ¶ 21 . ¶ 19 The purpose of Rule 651(c) is for counsel to shape the defendant’s claims into proper legal form and present those claims to the court. 2025People v. Addison, 2023 IL 127119, ¶ 21 . | 3 | 2025–2026 |
People v. Custer
green
2 sentences2026Custer, 2019 IL 123339, ¶ 32 . 6 No. 1-24-1651 The burden is on the defendant to overcome this presumption by demonstrating his postconviction counsel failed to substantially comply with the duties mandated by Rule 651(c). 2025People v. Custer, 2019 IL 123339, ¶ 32 . ¶ 28 The burden is on the defendant to overcome this presumption by demonstrating his postconviction counsel failed to substantially comply with the duties mandated by Rule 651(c). | 2 | 2025–2026 |
People v. Flournoy
green
2 sentences2018Id. ¶ 28 If the State satisfies its burden of proof at the in camera hearing, then the burden shifts to the defendant to overcome the privilege. 2017Id. ¶ 28 If the State satisfies its burden of proof at the in camera hearing, then the burden shifts to the defendant to overcome the privilege. | 2 | 2017–2018 |
People v. Knight
green
2 sentences2017Id. ¶ 36 If the State carries its burden at the in camera hearing, the burden of persuasion shifts to the defendant to overcome the privilege. 2016Id. ¶ 36 If the State carries its burden at the in camera hearing, the burden of persuasion shifts to the defendant to overcome the privilege. | 2 | 2016–2017 |
People v. Price
green
2 sentences2017Price, 404 Ill. 2016Price, 404 Ill. | 2 | 2016–2017 |
People v. Manning
green
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Urzua
green
1 sentence2025Postconviction counsel’s certification of compliance with the rule “creates a rebuttable presumption that counsel provided the petitioner with a reasonable level of assistance, absent an affirmative showing in the record.” People v. Urzua, 2023 IL 127789, ¶ 54 . ¶ 36 The burden rests with the defendant to overcome the presumption of reasonable assistance by showing that counsel failed to substantially comply with the dictates of the rule. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Gallano
green
1 sentence2025People v. Gallano, 2019 IL App (1st) 160570, ¶ 26 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Dixon
green
1 sentence2024“The filing of a Rule 651(c) certificate gives rise to a presumption that postconviction counsel provided reasonable assistance during second-stage proceedings under the Act. [Citation.] It falls on the defendant to overcome that presumption by demonstrating counsel’s failure to substantially comply with the duties mandated by Rule 651(c).” People v. Jones, 2011 IL App (1st) 092529, ¶ 23 . ¶ 13 Defendant relies on People v. Dixon, 2018 IL App (3d) 150630 , in support of his argument that postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Miller
green
1 sentence2021People v. Miller, 2017 IL App (3d) 140977, ¶ 47 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Kuehner
green
1 sentence2020Unless the postconviction counsel moved to withdraw (see Kuehner, 2015 IL 117695, ¶ 21 ), defendant must affirmatively establish that the omission of a pro se claim was unreasonable (see Wallace, 2016 IL App (1st) 142758 , - 15 - ¶ 26). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.