manifest error in Illinois

2026“Manifest error is ‘clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.’ ” Coleman, 2013 IL 113307, ¶ 98 (quoting People v. Morgan, 212 Ill. 2d 148, 155 (2004)).

2026“Manifest error is error which is clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Morgan, 212 Ill. 2d 148, 155 (2004).

2026“Manifest error is that which is ‘clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.’ ” People v. Johnson, 206 Ill. 2d 348, 360 (2002) (quoting People v. Ruiz, 177 Ill. 2d 368, 384-85 (1997)). ¶ 57 A trial court’s method of inquiry at a preliminary Krankel proceeding is flexible.

2026“Manifest error is that which is ‘clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.’ ” People v. Johnson, 206 Ill. 2d 348, 360 (2002) (quoting People v. Ruiz, 177 Ill. 2d 368, 384-85 (1997)). ¶ 98 A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for the deficient performance, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.

2026“Manifest error is that which is ‘clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.’ ” People v. Johnson, 206 Ill. 2d 348, 360 (2002) (quoting People v. Ruiz, 177 Ill. 2d 368, 384-85 (1997)). ¶ 57 A trial court’s method of inquiry at a preliminary Krankel proceeding is flexible.

2026“Manifest error is that which is ‘clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.’ ” People v. Johnson, 206 Ill. 2d 348, 360 (2002) (quoting People v. Ruiz, 177 Ill. 2d 368, 384-85 (1997)). ¶ 98 A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for the deficient performance, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.

2024See People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319, 333 (2009); People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 384-85 (1998) (“The manifestly erroneous standard represents the typical appellate standard of review for findings of fact made by a trial judge.”). ¶ 34 While the manifest error standard applies to the trial court’s decision to deny a postconviction petition following an evidentiary hearing (see Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d at 333 ), defendant is not challenging the court’s evaluation of his postconviction claims or its assessment of the third-stage evidence in this case.

2024In contrast, the State asserts that the standard of review should be de novo when reviewing the interpretation of a statute (see People v. Casler, 2020 IL 125117, ¶ 22 ) and otherwise believes the manifest error standard applies as the “typical appellate standard of review for findings of fact made by a trial judge” (People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 384-85 (1998)). ¶ 58 Furthermore, the parties dispute the burdens of proof and production and with whom they rest in an evidentiary hearing following a Commission referral for judicial review.

2025“Manifest error is error that is ‘clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.’ ” People v. Beaman, 229 Ill. 2d 56, 73 (2008) (quoting People v. Morgan, 212 Ill. 2d 148, 155 (2004)).

2024“Manifest error is clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” Id. (citing People v. Beaman, 229 Ill. 2d 56, 73 (2008)). ¶ 30 A defendant has a sixth amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations.

2026People v. McCoy, 2026 IL 131565, ¶ 50 . “ ‘Manifest error’ is error which is clearly plain, evident, and indisputable.” People v. Taylor, 237 Ill. 2d 356, 373 (2010). ¶ 38 Defendant raised a single claim of actual innocence in his postconviction petition.

2025People v. English, 2013 IL 112890, ¶ 23 . “ ‘Manifest error’ is error which is clearly plain, evident, and indisputable.” People v. Taylor, 237 Ill. 2d 356, 373 (2010).

2025“Manifest error is error that is clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” Id. ¶ 24 In order to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a defendant must satisfy the two-pronged test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

2024“Manifest error is error that is clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” Id. ¶ 31 Ineffectiveness claims are evaluated under the two-prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984).

2026“Manifest error is clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Coleman, 2013 IL 113307 , ¶ 98. “[A] decision is manifestly erroneous when the opposite conclusion is clearly evident.” Id.

2026“Manifest error is clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Coleman, 2013 IL 113307 , ¶ 98. “[A] decision is manifestly erroneous when the opposite conclusion is clearly evident.” Id.

2025“A manifest error is one that is ‘clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.’ [Citation.]” Mendoza, 2024 IL App (1st) 231588, ¶ 31 (citing People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319, 333 (2009)).

2024See People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319, 333 (2009); People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 384-85 (1998) (“The manifestly erroneous standard represents the typical appellate standard of review for findings of fact made by a trial judge.”). ¶ 34 While the manifest error standard applies to the trial court’s decision to deny a postconviction petition following an evidentiary hearing (see Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d at 333 ), defendant is not challenging the court’s evaluation of his postconviction claims or its assessment of the third-stage evidence in this case.

2025See People v. Tolefree, 2011 IL App (1st) 100689, ¶ 25 (applying manifest error on review of a pro se claim of ineffective assistance); see also People v. Copeland, 2022 IL App (1st) 210590-U, ¶ 49 (same, where defendant retained new counsel for ineffective assistance claim). 6 Manifest error is error that is clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.

2025People v. Tolefree, 2011 IL App (1st) 100689, ¶ 25 . “ ‘Manifest error’ is error that is clearly plain, evident, and indisputable.” Id. ¶ 112 The State acknowledges that “the defense is not obligated to disclose unfavorable reports or opinions by non-testifying witnesses.” However, the State contends that any mistake of law does not merit remand and the appointment of new counsel where, after conducting a preliminary inquiry into defendant’s ineffective assistance claim, the court correctly concluded that defendant’s claim had no merit.

2025For a claim of actual innocence, a defendant “must present new, material, noncumulative evidence that is so conclusive it would probably - 24 - No. 1-23-1399 change the result on retrial.” Id. ¶ 96 (citing People v. Washington, 171 Ill. 2d 475, 489 (1996)).

2020Under Illinois law, “a claim of newly discovered evidence showing a defendant to be actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted is cognizable as a matter of due process.” People v. Washington, 171 Ill. 2d 475, 489 (1996).

2023See People v. Johnson, 227 Ill.

2023People v. Johnson, 227 Ill.

2004People v. Scott , 249 Ill.

2004People v. Scott, 249 Ill.

2026“Manifest error is error that is clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 98 ; see also Lawson, 2019 IL App (4th) 180452, ¶ 43 (citing People v. Coleman, 2013 IL 113307, ¶ 98 ). ¶ 45 Here, regarding the alleged failure to challenge the basis of the driving abstract, defendant specifically argues that his license suspension was based on a falsified traffic stop, which would not be evident from the driving abstract itself; thus, he argues that the trial court should have looked beyond the present record and inquired further.

2026Manifest error is “clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” Id. ¶ 21 Here, defendant concedes the trial court on remand conducted a procedurally sound Krankel inquiry, allowing defendant to articulate his claims and asking trial counsel to respond.

2025Manifest error occurs only when the trial court’s ruling demonstrates error that is “clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 98 ; see also People v. Reed, 2020 IL 124940, ¶ 51 ; see McCall, 2021 IL App (1st) 172105 , ¶ 54 (where it properly conducted Krankel hearing and reached determination on merits of Krankel motion, “our review of the trial court’s ruling is limited to a determination of whether the court manifestly erred”).

2024See Reed, 2020 IL 124940, ¶ 54 (affirming denial of petition after the trial court found witness incredible at third-stage evidentiary hearing where “[w]e cannot say it was unreasonable to question the truthfulness” of 19 No. 1-23-0172 witness who “came forward only after being imprisoned and discussing the case with defendant”). ¶ 54 Based on all this, then, we do not find that the trial court committed manifest error in concluding that Williams was incredible and that his testimony would not have made a difference in defendant’s trial.

2021Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d at 473 . ¶ 43 The manifest-error standard of review applies here.

2018People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458, 473 (2006). “ ‘Manifest error’ is defined as ‘error which is “clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” ’ ” People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319, 333 (2009) (quoting People v. Morgan, 212 Ill. 2d 148, 155 (2004), quoting People v. Johnson, 206 Ill. 2d 348, 360 (2002)).

2023“Typically, the manifest error standard is appropriate to review findings of fact made by a trial judge.” Webster v. Hartman, 195 Ill. 2d 426, 432 (2001); see People v. Richardson, 234 Ill. 2d 233, 251 (2009). ¶ 56 We recognize that some cases have employed the abuse of discretion standard in appeals from fitness determinations.

2005See Webster v. Hartman, 195 Ill. 2d 426, 432 (2001), citing Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d at 384-85 .

2021Manifest error is error that is “clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” People v. Ruiz, 177 Ill. 2d 368, 384-85 (1997). ¶ 117 A common-law procedure has developed following our supreme court’s Krankel decision, and it “is triggered when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.” People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29 .

2020Manifest error is error that is “clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” People v. Ruiz, 177 Ill. 2d 368, 384-85 (1997). ¶ 73 A common-law procedure has developed following our supreme court’s Krankel decision, and it “is triggered when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.” People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29 .

2025People v. Coleman, 206 Ill. 2d 261, 277 (2002). ¶ 68 Although the defendant’s petition received a third-stage evidentiary hearing, and his petition was denied by the trial court, the defendant is not appealing from the third-stage ruling.

2020Manifest error is “error that is ‘clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.’ ” Id. at 277 (quoting People v. Ruiz, 177 Ill. 2d 368, 384-85 , 686 N.E.2d 574, 582 (1997)). ¶ 58 Defendant’s postconviction claim on appeal involves an allegation of perjury.

1993App. 3d 71, 75 , 578 N.E.2d 169 .) "Manifest error” means error which is "clearly evident, plain and indisputable.” Green, 218 Ill.

1993App. 3d 71, 75 , 578 N.E.2d 169 .) "Manifest error” means error which is "clearly evident, plain and indisputable.” Green, 218 Ill.

2026Manifest error is that which is “clearly evident, plain and indisputable.” People v. Marshall, 375 Ill.

2024Manifest error is error that is “clearly evident, plain and indisputable.” People v. Marshall, 375 Ill.

2006App. 3d 517, 519 , 629 N.E.2d 1197, 1199 (1994) (holding trial court’s post-conviction decision that the defendant had been denied the effective assistance of counsel was to be reviewed for manifest error). “(Manifest error” means “error which is clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” Hightower, 258 Ill.

2006App. 3d 517, 519 , 629 N.E.2d 1197, 1199 (1994) (holding trial court’s post-conviction decision that the defendant had been denied the effective assistance of counsel was to be reviewed for manifest error). “(Manifest error” means “error which is clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” Hightower, 258 Ill.

2026Roddis, 2020 IL 124352, ¶ 35 .

2023Defendant cites Roddis, 2020 IL 124352, ¶ 56 (quoting Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 79 ), for the proposition that the deferential manifest error standard is applied because the trial court can “ ‘base its evaluation of the defendant’s pro se allegations of ineffective assistance on its knowledge of defense counsel’s performance at trial and the insufficiency of the defendant’s allegations on their face.’ ” However, the foregoing passage from Roddis does not concern the justification for the use of the manifest error standard, but rather describes some of the matters the court may consider when evalua

2017App. 3d 919 , 941, 325 Ill.Dec. 17 , 897 N.E.2d 265 (2008). " 'Manifest error' is error that is clearly plain, evident, and indisputable." Tolefree , 2011 IL App (1st) 100689 , ¶ 25, 355 Ill.Dec. 584 , 960 N.E.2d 27 (citing People v. Morgan , 212 Ill. 2d 148 , 155, 288 Ill.Dec. 166 , 817 N.E.2d 524 (2004) ). ¶ 91 C.

2017App. 3d 919 , 941, 325 Ill.Dec. 17 , 897 N.E.2d 265 (2008). " 'Manifest error' is error that is clearly plain, evident, and indisputable." Tolefree , 2011 IL App (1st) 100689 , ¶ 25, 355 Ill.Dec. 584 , 960 N.E.2d 27 (citing People v. Morgan , 212 Ill. 2d 148 , 155, 288 Ill.Dec. 166 , 817 N.E.2d 524 (2004) ). ¶ 91 C.

2023People v. Ruddock, 2022 IL App (1st) 173023, ¶ 51 ; People v. English, 406 Ill.

2018English, 2013 IL 112890, ¶¶ 23-24 ; English, 406 Ill.

2026See Carter, 2017 IL App (1st) 151297, ¶ 142 . ¶ 51 For the foregoing reasons, we find that the postconviction court’s ruling was not 18 No. 1-23-2391 manifestly erroneous and affirm the court’s third-stage dismissal of defendant’s postconviction petition. ¶ 52 Affirmed. 19

2021People v. Carter, 2017 IL App (1st) 151297 , ¶ 132.