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.
78 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2026 63 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. Greergreen2 sentences2026See Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d at 475-76 . ¶ 128 Even if the hearsay claim were a preexisting pro se claim, fulfillment of the amendment duty under Rule 651(c) “ ‘does not require postconviction counsel to advance frivolous or spurious claims on defendant’s behalf.’ ” People v. Endicott, 2025 IL App (5th) 230438, ¶ 33 (quoting People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192, 205 (2004)). “ ‘[I]f amendments to a pro se postconviction petition would only further a frivolous or patently nonmeritorious claim, they are not “necessary” within the meaning of the rule.’ ” Id. (quoting Greer, 212 Ill. 2d at 205 ). ¶ 129 2026See Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d at 475-76 . ¶ 128 Even if the hearsay claim were a preexisting pro se claim, fulfillment of the amendment duty under Rule 651(c) “ ‘does not require postconviction counsel to advance frivolous or spurious claims on defendant’s behalf.’ ” People v. Endicott, 2025 IL App (5th) 230438, ¶ 33 (quoting People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192, 205 (2004)). “ ‘[I]f amendments to a pro se postconviction petition would only further a frivolous or patently nonmeritorious claim, they are not “necessary” within the meaning of the rule.’ ” Id. (quoting Greer, 212 Ill. 2d at 205 ). ¶ 129 | 46 | 70 |
People v. Pinkonslygreen2 sentences2025The supreme court has “repeatedly held that the purpose of Rule 651(c) is to ensure that counsel shapes the petitioner’s claims into proper legal form and presents those claims to the court.” People v. Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d 34, 43-44 (2007) (citing People v. Pinkonsly, 207 Ill. 2d 555 , 568 12 No. 1-23-1656 (2003), quoting People v. Owens, 139 Ill. 2d 351, 364-65 (1990)). ¶ 30 Defendant was represented by multiple attorneys throughout his postconviction proceedings. 2024The supreme court has “repeatedly held that the purpose of Rule 651(c) is to ensure that counsel shapes the petitioner’s claims into proper legal form and presents those claims to the court.” People v. Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d 34, 43-44 (2007) (citing People v. Pinkonsly, 207 Ill. 2d 555, 568 (2003), quoting People v. Owens, 139 Ill. 2d 351, 364-65 (1990)). ¶ 26 Additionally, the supreme court in Pendleton observed that “ ‘post conviction counsel is only required to investigate and properly present the petitioner’s claims.’ ” (Emphasis in 15 No. 1-22-1579 original.) Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d at 472 ( | 8 | 9 |
People v. Perkinsgreen2 sentences2025“If amendments to a pro se postconviction petition would only further a frivolous or patently nonmeritorious claim, they are not ‘necessary’ within the meaning of the rule.” People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192, 205 (2004); see also People v. Kirk, 2012 IL App (1st) 101606, ¶ 21 (stating “counsel’s decision not to amend a defendant’s pro se petition has been held not to constitute a deprivation of adequate representation where [the defendant’s] claim lack[ed] a sufficient factual basis”). ¶ 21 The purpose of Rule 651(c) is to “ensure that counsel shapes the [defendant’s] claims into proper legal f 2024“If amendments to a pro se postconviction petition would only further a frivolous or patently nonmeritorious claim, they are not ‘necessary’ within the meaning of the rule.” People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192, 205 (2004); see also People v. Kirk, 2012 IL App (1st) 101606, ¶ 21 (“counsel’s decision not to amend a defendant’s pro se petition has been held not to - 13 - No. 1-23-0672 constitute a deprivation of adequate representation where [the defendant’s] claim lack[ed] a sufficient factual basis”). ¶ 39 Rule 651(c) ensures that counsel “shapes the [defendant’s] claims into proper legal form and | 7 | 15 |
People v. Owensgreen2 sentences2025The supreme court has “repeatedly held that the purpose of Rule 651(c) is to ensure that counsel shapes the petitioner’s claims into proper legal form and presents those claims to the court.” People v. Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d 34, 43-44 (2007) (citing People v. Pinkonsly, 207 Ill. 2d 555 , 568 12 No. 1-23-1656 (2003), quoting People v. Owens, 139 Ill. 2d 351, 364-65 (1990)). ¶ 30 Defendant was represented by multiple attorneys throughout his postconviction proceedings. 2024The supreme court has “repeatedly held that the purpose of Rule 651(c) is to ensure that counsel shapes the petitioner’s claims into proper legal form and presents those claims to the court.” People v. Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d 34, 43-44 (2007) (citing People v. Pinkonsly, 207 Ill. 2d 555, 568 (2003), quoting People v. Owens, 139 Ill. 2d 351, 364-65 (1990)). ¶ 26 Additionally, the supreme court in Pendleton observed that “ ‘post conviction counsel is only required to investigate and properly present the petitioner’s claims.’ ” (Emphasis in 15 No. 1-22-1579 original.) Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d at 472 ( | 5 | 5 |
People v. Pendletongreen2 sentences2026See Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d at 475-76 . ¶ 128 Even if the hearsay claim were a preexisting pro se claim, fulfillment of the amendment duty under Rule 651(c) “ ‘does not require postconviction counsel to advance frivolous or spurious claims on defendant’s behalf.’ ” People v. Endicott, 2025 IL App (5th) 230438, ¶ 33 (quoting People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192, 205 (2004)). “ ‘[I]f amendments to a pro se postconviction petition would only further a frivolous or patently nonmeritorious claim, they are not “necessary” within the meaning of the rule.’ ” Id. (quoting Greer, 212 Ill. 2d at 205 ). ¶ 129 2022If amendments to a pro se postconviction petition would only further a frivolous or patently nonmeritorious claim, they are not ‘necessary’ within the meaning of the rule.” People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192, 205 (2004); People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458, 472 (2006) (same). | 2 | 8 |
People v. Kirkgreen2 sentences2025“If amendments to a pro se postconviction petition would only further a frivolous or patently nonmeritorious claim, they are not ‘necessary’ within the meaning of the rule.” People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192, 205 (2004); see also People v. Kirk, 2012 IL App (1st) 101606, ¶ 21 (stating “counsel’s decision not to amend a defendant’s pro se petition has been held not to constitute a deprivation of adequate representation where [the defendant’s] claim lack[ed] a sufficient factual basis”). ¶ 21 The purpose of Rule 651(c) is to “ensure that counsel shapes the [defendant’s] claims into proper legal f 2024“If amendments to a pro se postconviction petition would only further a frivolous or patently nonmeritorious claim, they are not ‘necessary’ within the meaning of the rule.” People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192, 205 (2004); see also People v. Kirk, 2012 IL App (1st) 101606, ¶ 21 (“counsel’s decision not to amend a defendant’s pro se petition has been held not to - 13 - No. 1-23-0672 constitute a deprivation of adequate representation where [the defendant’s] claim lack[ed] a sufficient factual basis”). ¶ 39 Rule 651(c) ensures that counsel “shapes the [defendant’s] claims into proper legal form and | 2 | 2 |
People v. Huffgreen2 sentences2025However, “[a]mendments that would ‘only further a frivolous or patently nonmeritorious claim *** are not necessary’ under Rule 651(c).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Huff, 2024 IL 128492, ¶ 22 (quoting People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d at 205). 2025Greer, 212 Ill. 2d at 207 ; see also People v. Huff, 2024 IL 128492, ¶ 29 (“Greer suggests that, if appointed counsel knows that a petitioner’s claims were frivolous or patently without merit, then counsel has an ethical duty to withdraw” them); see also People v. Wise, 2024 IL App (2d) 191139 ¶ 20 . ¶ 28 Consequently, if, as the State suggests, counsel here believed that the jury instruction and improper closing argument claims lacked merit, he was obligated to omit them altogether. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Profitgreen2 sentences2023If amendments * * * would only further a frivolous or patently nonmeritorious claim, they are not ‘necessary’ within the meaning of the rule.” People v. Profit, 2012 IL App (1st) 101307, ¶ 23 (quoting People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192, 205 (2004)). ¶ 49 Counsel’s compliance with Rule 651(c) is “mandatory” and “may be shown by a certificate filed by the petitioner’s attorney.” Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d at 50 . 2023If amendment to a pro se - 20 - No. 1-22-0916 postconviction petition would only further a frivolous or patently nonmeritorious claim, they are not necessary within the meaning of the rule. ¶ 50 Moreover, this is not a case where postconviction counsel was not appointed until after the State filed a motion to dismiss the pro se petition, such as in Profit, 2012 IL App (1st) 101307, ¶ 28 . | 1 | 11 |
People v. Kinggreen2 sentences2025Id. 2024App. 3d 1056, 1062 (2008); Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d at 50 ; King, 2023 IL App (1st) 220916, ¶ 49 (“If amendment to a pro se postconviction petition would only further a frivolous or patently nonmeritorious claim, they are not necessary within the meaning of the rule.”)). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Gallanogreen2 sentences2023Consequently, “where *** the presumption of reasonable assistance is present, ‘the question of whether the pro se allegations had merit is crucial to determining whether counsel acted unreasonably by not filing an amended petition.’ ” People v. Gallano, 2019 IL App (1st) 160570, ¶ 30 , (quoting People v. Profit, 2012 IL App (1st) 101307, ¶ 23 ). 2022Consequently, “where *** the presumption of reasonable assistance is present, ‘the question of whether the pro se allegations had merit is crucial to determining whether counsel acted unreasonably by not filing an amended petition.’ ” People v. Gallano, 2019 IL App (1st) 160570, ¶ 30 (quoting People v. Profit, 2012 IL App (1st) 101307, ¶ 23 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Endicottgreen1 sentence2026See Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d at 475-76 . ¶ 128 Even if the hearsay claim were a preexisting pro se claim, fulfillment of the amendment duty under Rule 651(c) “ ‘does not require postconviction counsel to advance frivolous or spurious claims on defendant’s behalf.’ ” People v. Endicott, 2025 IL App (5th) 230438, ¶ 33 (quoting People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192, 205 (2004)). “ ‘[I]f amendments to a pro se postconviction petition would only further a frivolous or patently nonmeritorious claim, they are not “necessary” within the meaning of the rule.’ ” Id. (quoting Greer, 212 Ill. 2d at 205 ). ¶ 129 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wisegreen1 sentence2025Greer, 212 Ill. 2d at 207 ; see also People v. Huff, 2024 IL 128492, ¶ 29 (“Greer suggests that, if appointed counsel knows that a petitioner’s claims were frivolous or patently without merit, then counsel has an ethical duty to withdraw” them); see also People v. Wise, 2024 IL App (2d) 191139 ¶ 20 . ¶ 28 Consequently, if, as the State suggests, counsel here believed that the jury instruction and improper closing argument claims lacked merit, he was obligated to omit them altogether. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mullinsgreen1 sentence2022Here, defendant specifically contends that postconviction counsel improperly failed to support defendant’s claims regarding trial counsel’s failure to contact Mendoza or present her alibi testimony by supplementing defendant’s petition with Mendoza’s affidavit, in which she averred that defendant was at home with their child at the time of the shooting. ¶ 37 However, an “alibi” is “ ‘[a] defense based on the physical impossibility of a defendant's guilt by placing the defendant in a location other than the scene of the crime at the relevant time.’ ” People v. Mullins, 242 Ill. 2d 1, 24 (2011), | 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. Addison
green
2 sentences2025Rather, once postconviction counsel has reviewed the pro se petition 25 No. 1-24-0463 and identified which claims to pursue, reasonable assistance requires counsel to “shape the claims into the proper form.” Addison, 2023 IL 127119, ¶ 26 . 2024The Addison court recognized that “Greer explained that, ‘[i]f amendments to a pro se postconviction petition would only further a frivolous or patently nonmeritorious claim, they are not “necessary” within the meaning of the rule.’ [Citation.]” Id. (quoting Greer, 212 Ill. - 11 - 2024 IL App (2d) 210753-U 2d at 205). | 3 | 2024–2025 |
People v. Nitz
green
2 sentences2026Nitz, 2011 IL App (2d) 100031, ¶ 18 . 2025Nitz, 2011 IL App (2d) 100031, ¶ 18 . | 2 | 2025–2026 |
People v. Davis
green
2 sentences2021The supreme court has “repeatedly held that the purpose of Rule 651(c) is to ensure that counsel shapes the petitioner’s claims into proper legal form and presents those claims to the court.” Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d at 43 -44 (citing People v. Pinkonsly, 207 Ill. 2d 555, 568 (2003)). ¶ 39 Additionally, the supreme court in Pendleton observed that “ ‘[p]ost-conviction counsel is only required to investigate and properly present the petitioner’s claims.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d at 472 (quoting Davis, 156 Ill. 2d at 164 ). 2021The supreme court has “repeatedly held that the purpose of Rule 651(c) is to ensure that counsel shapes the petitioner’s claims into proper legal form and presents those claims to the court.” Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d at 43 -44 (citing People v. Pinkonsly, 207 Ill. 2d 555, 568 (2003)). ¶ 39 Additionally, the supreme court in Pendleton observed that “ ‘[p]ost-conviction counsel is only required to investigate and properly present the petitioner’s claims.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d at 472 (quoting Davis, 156 Ill. 2d at 164 ). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Turner
green
2 sentences2021Greer, 212 Ill. 2d at 205 . -6- ¶ 20 Defendant likens his case to People v. Turner, 187 Ill. 2d 406 , 719 N.E.2d 725 (1999), asserting “[Turner] is illustrative of the unreasonableness of [defendant]’s postconviction counsel.” However, Turner is factually distinguishable from this case. 2020“However, if amendments to a pro se petition would only further a frivolous or patently nonmeritorious claim they are not necessary within the meaning of Rule 651(c).” Id. (citing People v. Greer, 212 Ill.2d 192, 205 (2004)). | 2 | 2020–2021 |
People v. Urzua
green
1 sentence2025“Counsel’s certification that he or she complied with Rule 651(c) duties 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 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. James
green
1 sentence2024Counsel is also allowed to inform the court that she did not amend the petition “because she could find no evidentiary support to do so.” James, 2023 IL App (1st) 192232, ¶ 42 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Huff
neutral
1 sentence2024Id. ¶ 27 (citing People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192, 205 (2004)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Pabello
green
1 sentence2024Rule 651(c) does not govern postconviction counsel’s performance during the third-stage hearing; rather, “that performance is measured by the overarching reasonableness standard generally applicable to a postconviction proceeding.” People v. Pabello, 2019 IL App (2d) 170867, ¶ 35 . 10 ¶ 30 Although we allowed the State to supplement the record on appeal with the undated 651(c) certificate, it does not change the outcome given the procedural posture of the instant case; that is, dismissal of the defendant’s amended postconviction petition following a third-stage evidentiary hearing. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Russell
green
1 sentence2023We disagree. “[I]f amendments to a pro se petition would only further a frivolous or patently nonmeritorious claim they are not necessary within the meaning of Rule 651(c).” People v. Russell, 2016 IL App (3d) 140386, ¶ 10 . ¶ 16 Here, the defendant’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate evidence that the crime was not committed by a two-by-four was clearly frivolous. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Reed
green
1 sentence2022A defendant who alleges a claim of actual innocence after - 12 - No. 1-19-1915 pleading guilty must present evidence that is newly discovered, material, non-cumulative, and of such a conclusive character that it “clearly and convincingly demonstrates that a trial would probably result in acquittal.” People v. Reed, 2020 IL 124940, ¶ 49 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2020Petitioner claims that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in coercing him into a guilty plea and in failing to coordinate the plea proceedings here with those taking place in his other pending DUI prosecution in DuPage County. ¶ 27 Ineffective assistance claims, of course, are governed by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Boykins
green
2 sentences2020A claim is frivolous and patently without merit if it has “no arguable basis either in law or in fact, relying instead on an indisputably meritless legal theory or a fanciful factual allegation.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Boykins, 2017 IL 121365 , ¶ 9, 93 N.E.3d 504 . 2020A claim is frivolous and patently without merit if it has “no arguable basis either in law or in fact, relying instead on an indisputably meritless legal theory or a fanciful factual allegation.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Boykins, 2017 IL 121365 , ¶ 9, 93 N.E.3d 504 . | 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.