petition without an evidentiary hearing in Illinois

2026The court explained that “counsel’s failure to amend the postconviction petition to allege ineffective assistance of appellate counsel prevented the circuit court from considering the merits of petitioner’s claims and directly contributed to the dismissal of the petition without an evidentiary hearing.” Id. ¶ 41 Here, there was nothing postconviction counsel did, or failed to do, that prevented the circuit court from considering the merits of Gonzalez’s claims.

2026Madison, 2023 IL App (1st) 221360, ¶ 49 ; Addison, 2023 IL 127119, ¶ 41 (citing Turner, 187 Ill. 2d at 416 (“This 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).”).

2025People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 388 (1998). ¶ 37 Stephens’s postconviction petition advanced to the second stage.

2025People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 388 (1998). ¶ 20 Arguable Claim ¶ 21 The circuit court dismissed Robinson’s petition on three bases: (i) res judicata barred his claim because this court decided it on direct appeal, (ii) his claim lacked support because he failed to attach evidence of his date of birth or of his prior convictions, and (iii) his claim lacked an arguable basis in law. ¶ 22 Res Judicata ¶ 23 Res judicata is a common-law doctrine that operates in postconviction proceedings as it does elsewhere.

2026Id. at 47-49 (our supreme court would not “ ‘presume, however, that the trial court would have dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing if counsel had 12 adequately performed his duties under Rule 651(c)’ ” (quoting People v. Johnson, 154 Ill. 2d 227, 246 (1993))); Turner, 187 Ill. 2d at 416 (our supreme court refused to speculate on whether the trial court would have dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing had counsel adequately performed his duties under Rule 651(c)).

2025Johnson, 154 Ill. 2d at 246 (“We cannot simply presume, however, that the trial court would have dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing if - 23 - 1-23-1640 counsel had adequately performed his duties under Rule 651(c).

2025People v. Childress, 191 Ill. 2d 168, 174 (2000).

2014People v. Childress, 191 Ill. 2d 168, 174 (2000). ¶ 19 The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) contemplates the filing of only one postconviction petition. 725 ILCS 5/122-3 (West 2010).

1998See, e.g. , People v. Madej , 177 Ill. 2d 116, 127 (1997); People v. Whitehead , 169 Ill. 2d 355, 370-71 (1996).

1998See, e.g., People v. Madej, 177 Ill. 2d 116, 127 (1997); People v. Whitehead, 169 Ill. 2d 355, 370-71 (1996).

2023See id. (stating that the reviewing court “will not speculate whether the trial court would - 16 - No. 1-21-1205 have dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing if counsel had adequately performed his duties under Rule 651(c)”). ¶ 48 Accordingly, because counsel did not comply with her duties under Rule 651(c) by amending the petition to include a rote claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, we will not assess the merits of any such claim. 2 See People v. Wallace, 2018 IL App (5th) 140385, ¶ 45 (declining “to consider the merits of the defendant’s petition where the tr

2020See People v. Russell, 2016 IL App (3d) 140386, ¶ 12 ; see also People v. Turner, 187 Ill. 2d 406, 416 (1999) (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)”).

2026Id. at 47-49 (our supreme court would not “ ‘presume, however, that the trial court would have dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing if counsel had 12 adequately performed his duties under Rule 651(c)’ ” (quoting People v. Johnson, 154 Ill. 2d 227, 246 (1993))); Turner, 187 Ill. 2d at 416 (our supreme court refused to speculate on whether the trial court would have dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing had counsel adequately performed his duties under Rule 651(c)).

2026See People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37, 47 (2007) (“This court has consistently held that remand is required where postconviction counsel failed to fulfill the duties of consultation, examining the record, and amendment of the pro se petition, regardless of whether the claims raised in the petition had merit.”); People v. Turner, 187 Ill. 2d 406, 416 (1999) (“This 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).”); People v. Jones, 43 Ill. 2d 160, 162 (1969) (“We hav

2024App. 3d 706, 711 (1993) (while failure to take a direct appeal may result in forfeiture of claims of nonconstitutional error, it does not bar review of constitutional claims raised in a postconviction petition); see also People v. Rose, 43 Ill. 2d 273, 279 (1969). ¶ 23 Thus, we find that postconviction counsel’s failure to amend the pro se postconviction petition precluded consideration of the defendant’s claims on the merits and directly contributed to the dismissal of the petition without an evidentiary hearing.

1988See People v. Rose (1969), 43 Ill. 2d 273, 279 .

2017But see Harris Bank N.A. v. Harris, 2015 IL App (1st) 133017, ¶¶ 39, 60 (applying an abuse of discretion standard where no evidentiary hearing was held); Forest Preserve District v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 131925, ¶¶ 70, 84 (same).

2017But see Harris Bank N.A. v. Harris, 2015 IL App (1st) 133017, ¶¶ 39, 60 (applying an abuse of discretion standard where no evidentiary hearing was held); Forest Preserve District v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 131925, ¶¶ 70, 84 (same).

2005See Petersen , 319 Ill.

2005See Petersen, 319 Ill.

2004People v. Harris, 206 Ill. 2d 1, 13 , 794 N.E.2d 314, 323-24 (2002).

2004People v. Harris, 206 Ill. 2d 1, 13 , 794 N.E.2d 314, 323-24 (2002).

1998See, e.g. , People v. Madej , 177 Ill. 2d 116, 127 (1997); People v. Whitehead , 169 Ill. 2d 355, 370-71 (1996).

1998See, e.g., People v. Madej, 177 Ill. 2d 116, 127 (1997); People v. Whitehead, 169 Ill. 2d 355, 370-71 (1996).

2026Madison, 2023 IL App (1st) 221360, ¶ 49 ; Addison, 2023 IL 127119, ¶ 41 (citing Turner, 187 Ill. 2d at 416 (“This 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).”).

2025Addison, 2023 IL 127119, ¶¶ 39-42 ; see Turner, 187 Ill.2d at 416 (“This 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).”) (citing People v. Johnson, 152 Ill.2d 227 , 246 (1993)). ¶ 30 In this case, postconviction counsel failed to make necessary amendments to properly shape the defendant’s claims by resting on the defendant’s pro se petition, which purportedly raised an actual innocence claim but in substance argued that the guilty verdict was “against the manife

2023See id. (stating that the reviewing court “will not speculate whether the trial court would - 16 - No. 1-21-1205 have dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing if counsel had adequately performed his duties under Rule 651(c)”). ¶ 48 Accordingly, because counsel did not comply with her duties under Rule 651(c) by amending the petition to include a rote claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, we will not assess the merits of any such claim. 2 See People v. Wallace, 2018 IL App (5th) 140385, ¶ 45 (declining “to consider the merits of the defendant’s petition where the tr

2021“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.

2026See People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37, 47 (2007) (“This court has consistently held that remand is required where postconviction counsel failed to fulfill the duties of consultation, examining the record, and amendment of the pro se petition, regardless of whether the claims raised in the petition had merit.”); People v. Turner, 187 Ill. 2d 406, 416 (1999) (“This 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).”); People v. Jones, 43 Ill. 2d 160, 162 (1969) (“We hav

2023See id. (stating that the reviewing court “will not speculate whether the trial court would - 16 - No. 1-21-1205 have dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing if counsel had adequately performed his duties under Rule 651(c)”). ¶ 48 Accordingly, because counsel did not comply with her duties under Rule 651(c) by amending the petition to include a rote claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, we will not assess the merits of any such claim. 2 See People v. Wallace, 2018 IL App (5th) 140385, ¶ 45 (declining “to consider the merits of the defendant’s petition where the tr

2023See Cotton, 2012 IL App (1st) 102438, ¶ 18 (where the defendant is able to present a significant issue with respect to the truthfulness of the affidavit for service by publication, the trial court should hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue); Nasolo, 364 Ill.