105 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2026 40 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. Morgangreen2 sentences2023Prejudice is shown “where the defendant can show that the claimed constitutional error so infected his trial that the resulting conviction violated due process.” People v. Morgan, 212 Ill. 2d 148, 154 (2004). ¶ 18 Here, the only “cause” defendant alleged was that Miller was decided after he entered his guilty plea. 2022To show prejudice, he must “show that the claimed constitutional error so infected his trial that the resulting conviction violated due process.” People v. Morgan, 212 Ill. 2d 148, 154 (2004). | 11 | 14 |
People v. Pitsonbargergreen2 sentences2026Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d at 460 ; see Williams, 2024 IL 127304, ¶¶ 35-36 . ¶ 48 Prejudice ¶ 49 Sanchez contends he also established prejudice because the sentencing court’s “comments demonstrated that it would not have sentenced Juan to life imprisonment were it not [then] mandatory.” We agree. ¶ 50 Generally, a petitioner establishes prejudice by showing the claimed constitutional error so infected the trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violated due process. 2025“Prejudice” is shown 12 where the claimed constitutional error “so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violates due process.” Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d at 464 . ¶ 31 In the present case, on October 17, 2016, the defendant filed a successive postconviction petition that was denied by the trial court. | 4 | 46 |
People v. Tennergreen2 sentences2004To establish ‘prejudice,’ the defendant must show the claimed constitutional error so infected his trial that the resulting conviction violated due process. [Citation.]” Tenner, 206 Ill. 2d at 393 . 2004To establish `prejudice,' the defendant must show the claimed constitutional error so infected his trial that the resulting conviction violated due process. [Citation.]" Tenner, 206 Ill.2d at 393 , 276 Ill. | 4 | 9 |
People v. Colemangreen2 sentences2014“To establish ‘prejudice,’ the defendant must show the claimed constitutional error so infected his trial that the resulting conviction violated due process.” Coleman, 2013 IL 113307, ¶ 82 (citing Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d at 464 ). 2014“To establish ‘prejudice,’ the defendant must show the claimed constitutional error so infected his trial that the resulting conviction violated due process.” Coleman, 2013 IL 113307, ¶ 82 (citing Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d at 464 ). | 4 | 6 |
Sawyer v. Whitleygreen2 sentences2009“To demonstrate such a miscarriage of justice, a petitioner must show actual innocence or, in the context of the death penalty, he must show that but for the claimed constitutional error he would not have been found eligible for the death penalty.” (Emphasis added.) Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d at 459 , citing People v. Hudson, 195 Ill. 2d 117, 124 (2001), citing Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 , 120 L. 2009“To demonstrate such a miscarriage of justice, a petitioner must show actual innocence or, in the context of the death penalty, he must show that but for the claimed constitutional error he would not have been found eligible for the death penalty.” (Emphasis added.) Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d at 459 , citing People v. Hudson, 195 Ill. 2d 117, 124 (2001), citing Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 , 120 L. | 4 | 6 |
People v. Ortizgreen2 sentences2022See People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319, 329 (2009) (prejudice is shown where the claimed constitutional error so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violates due process). ¶ 18 We again note that the trial court’s order concerning the hidden street files only allows disclosure of the file to counsel and not the defendant. 2014“Prejudice” refers to a claimed constitutional error that so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violates due process. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2012); Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d at 329; Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d at 460, 464 . | 3 | 3 |
People v. Hudsongreen2 sentences2009"To demonstrate such a miscarriage of justice, a petitioner must show actual innocence or, in the context of the death penalty, he must show that but for the claimed constitutional error he would not have been found eligible for the death penalty." (Emphasis added.) Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill.2d at 459 , 275 Ill.Dec. 838 , 793 N.E.2d 609 , citing People v. Hudson, 195 Ill.2d 117, 124 , 253 Ill.Dec. 712 , 745 N.E.2d 1246 (2001), citing Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 , 112 S.Ct. 2514 , 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992). 2009“To demonstrate such a miscarriage of justice, a petitioner must show actual innocence or, in the context of the death penalty, he must show that but for the claimed constitutional error he would not have been found eligible for the death penalty.” (Emphasis added.) Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d at 459 , citing People v. Hudson, 195 Ill. 2d 117, 124 (2001), citing Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 , 120 L. | 2 | 3 |
People v. Marshallgreen2 sentences2023See Marshall, 375 Ill. 2023See Marshall, 375 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Owensgreen2 sentences2003See Owens, 129 Ill. 2d at 317-18 . 2003See Owens, 129 Ill.2d at 317-18 , 135 Ill.Dec. 780 , 544 N.E.2d 276 . | 2 | 2 |
People v. Andersongreen2 sentences2011In 2004, our legislature amended the Act to adopt the cause-and-prejudice test. 725 ILCS 5/122–1(f) (West 2004); People v. Anderson, 375 Ill. 2011In 2004, our legislature amended the Act to adopt the cause-and-prejudice test. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2004); People v. Anderson, 375 Ill.App.3d 121, 135 , 313 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2026Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d at 460 ; see Williams, 2024 IL 127304, ¶¶ 35-36 . ¶ 48 Prejudice ¶ 49 Sanchez contends he also established prejudice because the sentencing court’s “comments demonstrated that it would not have sentenced Juan to life imprisonment were it not [then] mandatory.” We agree. ¶ 50 Generally, a petitioner establishes prejudice by showing the claimed constitutional error so infected the trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violated due process. | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Szabogreen | 1 | 1 |
McCleskey v. Zantgreen1 sentence2021“The United States Supreme Court has stated that the exception serves ‘ “as an additional safeguard against compelling an innocent man to suffer an unconstitutional loss of liberty, guaranteeing that the ends of justice will be served in full.” ’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Szabo, 186 Ill. 2d 19, 43 (1998) (Freeman, C.J., specially concurring, joined by Heiple, J.), quoting McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Buffergreen1 sentence2021Our supreme court has explained that Miller’s language is “ ‘significantly broader than its core holding.’ ” (People v. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶ 25 (quoting Holman, 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 38 )). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Edwardsgreen | 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. Davis
green
2 sentences2023“Cause” refers to some objective factor external to the defense that impeded counsel’s efforts to raise the claim in an earlier proceeding; “prejudice” refers to a claimed constitutional error that so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violates due process. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2012); Davis, 2014 IL 115595, ¶ 14 . ¶ 78 The legislature intended for the courts to make cause and prejudice determinations based on the pleadings and not by evidentiary hearings. 2022Id. “ ‘Prejudice’ ” means that the claimed constitutional error “so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violates due process.” Id. | 18 | 2016–2026 |
People v. Holman
red
2 sentences2024To establish “prejudice,” defendant must show that the claimed constitutional error “so infected his trial that the resulting conviction violated due process.” Id. 2023“To establish ‘prejudice,’ the defendant must show the claimed constitutional error so infected his trial that the resulting conviction violated due process.” Id. “[B]oth *** prongs of the cause-and-prejudice test must be satisfied in order for the defendant to prevail.” People v. Guerrero, 2012 IL 112020, ¶ 15 . | 7 | 2020–2024 |
People v. Edwards
green
2 sentences2025To establish prejudice, a defendant must show the claimed constitutional error “so infected the trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violated due process.” Id. 2021“To establish ‘prejudice,’ the defendant must show the claimed constitutional error so infected his trial that the resulting conviction violated due process.” Id. ¶ 38 The second basis to relax the bar against a successive postconviction is “what is known as the ‘fundamental miscarriage of justice’ exception.” Edwards, 2012 IL 111711, ¶ 23 . | 3 | 2020–2025 |
People v. Smith
green
2 sentences2023Further, “the cause-and-prejudice test for a successive petition involves a higher standard than the first-stage frivolous or patently without merit standard that is set forth in section 122-2.1(a)(2) of the Act.” People v. Smith, 2014 IL 115946, ¶ 35 . 2022Davis, 2014 IL 115595, ¶ 14 ; 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2018). [T]he cause-and-prejudice test for a successive petition involves a higher standard than the first-stage frivolous or patently without merit standard that is set forth in section 122-2.1(a)(2) of the Act [(725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a) (West 2018))].” People v. Smith, 2014 IL 115946, ¶ 35 . | 3 | 2019–2023 |
People v. Montanez
green
2 sentences2026To establish “prejudice,” a defendant must demonstrate that the claimed constitutional error so infected the trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violates due process. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2022); Montanez, 2023 IL 128740, ¶ 77 . 2026A defendant establishes prejudice when he can show that the claimed constitutional error “so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violates due process.” Montanez, 2023 IL 128740, ¶ 77 . ¶ 19 The cause-and-prejudice determination is a question of law, which is decided based upon defendant’s pleadings and supporting documentation, rather than through an evidentiary 7 No. 1-24-1357 hearing. | 2 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Bailey
green
2 sentences2021Prejudice is shown by demonstrating that the claimed constitutional violation “so infected the trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violated due process.” Id. 2020Prejudice is shown by demonstrating that the claimed constitutional violation “so infected the trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violated due process.” Id. | 2 | 2020–2021 |
Roper v. Simmons
green
2 sentences2017It started with Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), holding that the death penalty was unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. 2017It started with Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), holding that the death penalty was unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Simon
green
2 sentences2017In particular, a defendant seeking leave to file a successive postconviction petition must demonstrate cause for failing to raise the claim in his initial postconviction petition. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2012); People v. Simon, 2014 IL App (1st) 130567 , ¶ 65. ¶ 26 Our supreme court has also recognized a second category of successive postconviction petitions that warrants relaxation of the procedural bar: those raising a fundamental miscarriage of justice. 2016In particular, a defendant seeking leave to file a successive postconviction petition must demonstrate cause for failing to raise the claim in his initial postconviction petition. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2012); People v. Simon, 2014 IL App (1st) 130567 , ¶ 65. - 10 1-14-1021 ¶ 26 Our supreme court has also recognized a second category of successive postconviction petitions that warrants relaxation of the procedural bar: those raising a fundamental miscarriage of justice. | 2 | 2016–2017 |
People v. Flores
green
2 sentences2009"Prejudice" is shown where the claimed constitutional error "so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violates due process." Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill.2d at 464 , 275 Ill.Dec. 838 , 793 N.E.2d 609 , citing Flores, 153 Ill.2d at 279 , 180 Ill.Dec. 1 , 606 N.E.2d 1078 . 2009“Prejudice” is shown where the claimed constitutional error “so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violates due process.” Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d at 464 , citing Flores, 153 Ill. 2d at 279 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
In Re WC
green
2 sentences1996In re W.C., 167 Ill.2d at 318 , 212 Ill.Dec. 563 , 657 N.E.2d 908 . 1996In re W.C., 167 Ill. 2d at 318 . | 2 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Meredith
green
2 sentences1985We agree.” 84 Ill. 1985We agree." 84 Ill. | 2 | 1982–1985 |
People v. Clark
green
1 sentence2023Clark, 2023 IL 127273, ¶ 47 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2023Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Guerrero
green
1 sentence2023“To establish ‘prejudice,’ the defendant must show the claimed constitutional error so infected his trial that the resulting conviction violated due process.” Id. “[B]oth *** prongs of the cause-and-prejudice test must be satisfied in order for the defendant to prevail.” People v. Guerrero, 2012 IL 112020, ¶ 15 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Taylor
green
1 sentence2022App. 3d 888, 892-93 (2002). ¶ 14 The standards for filing a successive postconviction are as follows: “The Act contemplates the filing of a single petition. [Citation.] However, section 122-1(f) of the Act provides an exception to this rule, permitting a successive petition if the defendant first obtains permission from the [trial] court after demonstrating both cause for failing to bring the claim in his initial postconviction proceeding and resulting prejudice. [Citation.] To establish cause, a defendant must show some objective factor external to the -6- 2022 IL App (2d) 190951 defense that | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Sawczenko
green
1 sentence2022“A [defendant] is to get one complete opportunity to show that his constitutional rights were substantially denied.” Sawczenko, 328 Ill. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Simental
green
1 sentence2022App. 3d 888, 892-93 (2002). ¶ 14 The standards for filing a successive postconviction are as follows: “The Act contemplates the filing of a single petition. [Citation.] However, section 122-1(f) of the Act provides an exception to this rule, permitting a successive petition if the defendant first obtains permission from the [trial] court after demonstrating both cause for failing to bring the claim in his initial postconviction proceeding and resulting prejudice. [Citation.] To establish cause, a defendant must show some objective factor external to the -6- 2022 IL App (2d) 190951 defense that | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Miller v. Alabama green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Anderson green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| People v. Pickett green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.