showing violation in Illinois

2025“An evidentiary hearing is only required when the allegations of the petition, supported by the trial record and accompanying affidavits, make a substantial showing of a violation of a constitutional right.” People v. Flowers, 2015 IL App (1st) 113259, ¶ 31 . ¶ 26 There is no constitutional right to the assistance of counsel during postconviction proceedings.

2024“An evidentiary hearing is only required when the allegations of the petition, supported by the trial record and 12 1-19-0566-B accompanying affidavits, make a substantial showing of a violation of a constitutional right.” People v. Flowers, 2015 IL App (1st) 113259, ¶ 31 .

2002However, as stated in People v. Reeves, 412 Ill. 555 , we do not intend hereby to lessen the duty of petitioners under the Act to make a substantial showing of a violation of constitutional rights, for the allegations of mere conclusions to that effect under oath will not suffice.

2002However, as stated in People v. Reeves, 412 Ill. 555 , we do not intend hereby to lessen the duty of petitioners under the Act to make a substantial showing of a violation of constitutional rights, for the allegations of mere conclusions to that effect under oath will not suffice.

1994A post-conviction petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing as a matter of right. ( People v. Owens (1989), 129 Ill.2d 303, 308 , 135 Ill.Dec. 780 , 544 N.E.2d 276 , *1339 cert, denied (1990), 497 U.S. 1032 , 110 S.Ut. 3294, 111 L.Ed.2d 802 .) A hearing is required only when the petitioner makes a substantial showing of a violation of constitutional rights, and in order to accomplish this, the allegation in the petition must be supported by the record in the case or by accompanying affidavits. ( Owens, 129 Ill.2d at 308 , People v. Silagy (1987), 116 Ill.2d 357, 365 , 107 Ill.Dec. 6

1994A post-conviction petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing as a matter of right. ( People v. Owens (1989), 129 Ill.2d 303, 308 , 135 Ill.Dec. 780 , 544 N.E.2d 276 , *1339 cert, denied (1990), 497 U.S. 1032 , 110 S.Ut. 3294, 111 L.Ed.2d 802 .) A hearing is required only when the petitioner makes a substantial showing of a violation of constitutional rights, and in order to accomplish this, the allegation in the petition must be supported by the record in the case or by accompanying affidavits. ( Owens, 129 Ill.2d at 308 , People v. Silagy (1987), 116 Ill.2d 357, 365 , 107 Ill.Dec. 6

1989(People v. James (1986), 111 Ill. 2d 283, 290 .) “The purpose of a post-conviction proceeding is to inquire into the constitutional phases of the original conviction which have not already been adjudicated” (People v. Williams (1970), 47 Ill. 2d 1, 3 ), and the petitioner must make a substantial showing of a violation of a constitutional right (People v. Silagy (1987), 116 Ill. 2d 357, 365 ).

1989As noted, a proceeding under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act is not an appeal, but is a collateral attack on the judgment. ( People v. James (1986), 111 Ill.2d 283, 290 .) "The purpose of a post-conviction proceeding *283 is to inquire into the constitutional phases of the original conviction which have not already been adjudicated" ( People v. Williams (1970), 47 Ill.2d 1, 3 ), and the petitioner must make a substantial showing of a violation of a constitutional right ( People v. Silagy (1987), 116 Ill.2d 357, 365 ).

1919The Supreme Court has said: “In Skakel v. People, 188 Ill. 291 , on page 294, we say: ‘Every error must be specifically pointed out in the assignment of errors (Swift & Co. v. Fue, 167 Ill. 443 ), so clearly that from the showing the error is manifest (Gibler v. City of Mattoon, 167 Ill. 18 ), and an error not assigned is not open to review.’ ” Berry v. City of Chicago, 192 Ill. 154 .

1911In that case the court held: “Every error must he specifically pointed out in the assignment of errors so clearly that from the showing error is manifest, and an error not assigned is not open to review,” thus reaffirming what was said in Skakel v. People, 188 Ill. 291 ; Swift & Co. v. Fue, 167 Ill. 443 ; Gibler v. City of Mattoon, 167 Ill. 18 .

1919The Supreme Court has said: “In Skakel v. People, 188 Ill. 291 , on page 294, we say: ‘Every error must be specifically pointed out in the assignment of errors (Swift & Co. v. Fue, 167 Ill. 443 ), so clearly that from the showing the error is manifest (Gibler v. City of Mattoon, 167 Ill. 18 ), and an error not assigned is not open to review.’ ” Berry v. City of Chicago, 192 Ill. 154 .

1911In that case the court held: “Every error must he specifically pointed out in the assignment of errors so clearly that from the showing error is manifest, and an error not assigned is not open to review,” thus reaffirming what was said in Skakel v. People, 188 Ill. 291 ; Swift & Co. v. Fue, 167 Ill. 443 ; Gibler v. City of Mattoon, 167 Ill. 18 .

1995Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 122 — 6; People v. James (1986), 111 Ill. 2d 283, 291 .) Instead, an evidentiary hearing should be conducted where a substantial showing of a violation of constitutional rights has been made, supported by the record or affidavits.

1989(People v. Del Vecchio (1989), 129 Ill. 2d 265, 279 ; People v. James (1986), 111 Ill. 2d 283, 291 , 489 N.E.2d 1350 .) An evidentiary hearing is allowed only if the petitioner makes a substantial showing of a violation of a constitutional right and the allegations are supported by the record in the case or by accompanying affidavits.

2016This type of assessment of the adequacy of the motion does not require an exercise of discretion. ¶ 72 This court also noted the purpose of the substantial preliminary showing requirement: “to discourage abuse of the hearing process and to enable spurious claims to ‘wash out at an early stage.’ ” Id. at 151 (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 170 ).

2016This type of assessment of the adequacy of the motion does not require an exercise of discretion. ¶ 72 This court also noted the purpose of the substantial preliminary showing requirement: “to discourage abuse of the hearing process and to enable spurious claims to ‘wash out at an early stage.’ ” Id. at 151 (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 170 ).

1989A post-conviction petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing as a matter of right. ( People v. James (1986), 111 Ill.2d 283, 291 .) A hearing is only allowed if the petitioner makes a substantial showing of a violation of a constitutional right and the allegations are supported by the record in the case or by accompanying affidavits. ( People v. Curtis (1971), 48 Ill.2d 25, 27 .) Del Vecchio attempts to establish circumstantially that it is implausible his mother would have made such a statement.

1989However, this court has held that a post-conviction *292 petition is not entitled to a hearing as a matter of right, but that a hearing should be conducted only when the petition makes a substantial showing of a violation of constitutional right. ( People v. Silagy (1987), 116 Ill.2d 357, 365 ; People v. Gaines (1984), 105 Ill.2d 79, 91-92 ; People v. Curtis (1971), 48 Ill.2d 25, 27 .) In my opinion, under the analysis of the holding of Strickland v. Washington , the defendant did not make a substantial showing of ineffective assistance of counsel by the allegations of his petition and the aff

1984(People v. Arbuckle (1969), 42 Ill. 2d 177 , 246 N.E.2d 240 .) Mere allegations that a trial error has constitutional ramifications does not elevate it to constitutional status.

1971(People v. Arbuckle, 42 Ill.2d 177 .) The foregoing allegation failed to make the substantial showing of a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights which the Act requires.

1972(People v. Morris, 43 Ill.2d 124 , 251 N.E.2d 202 ; People v. Slicker, 42 Ill.2d 307 , 247 N.E.2d 407 .) Since defendant has made only broad nonspecific assertions and has failed to present a substantial showing of violation of his constitutional rights, his petition was nonmeritorious on its face and we find the trial court acted properly when it dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing.

1972(People v. Morris, 43 Ill.2d 124 , 251 N.E.2d 202 ; People v. Slicker, 42 Ill.2d 307 , 247 N.E.2d 407 .) Since defendant has made only broad nonspecific assertions and has failed to present a substantial showing of violation of his constitutional rights, his petition was nonmeritorious on its face and we find the trial court acted properly when it dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing.

1970(People v. Morris, 43 Ill.2d 124, 127 ; People v. Ashley, 34 Ill.2d 402, 411 .) Under the holdings of the above-cited cases and many others, the allegations of the petition now before us are entirely conclusory and clearly insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing.

1968To secure such a hearing, petitioners under the Act must “make a substantial showing of a violation of constitutional rights, for the allegation of a mere conclusion to that effect under oath will not suffice.” (People v. Reeves, 412 Ill. 555, 560 .) In People v. Ashley, 34 Ill.2d 402 , (where incompetency of counsel was alleged) and in People v. Vitale, 3 Ill.2d 99 , (prejudice of trial judge), we upheld the dismissal of petitions for failure to substantiate general allegations with factual pleadings.

1919The Supreme Court has said: “In Skakel v. People, 188 Ill. 291 , on page 294, we say: ‘Every error must be specifically pointed out in the assignment of errors (Swift & Co. v. Fue, 167 Ill. 443 ), so clearly that from the showing the error is manifest (Gibler v. City of Mattoon, 167 Ill. 18 ), and an error not assigned is not open to review.’ ” Berry v. City of Chicago, 192 Ill. 154 .

1905In Berry v. City of Chicago, 192 Ill. 154 , on page 155, it is said: “In Skakel v. People, 188 Ill. 291 , on page 294 we say: ‘Every error must be specifically pointed out in the assignment of errors, (Swift & Co. v. Fue, 167 Ill. 443 ,) so clearly that from the showing error is manifest, (Gibler v. City of Mattoon, 167 Ill. 18 ,) and an error not assigned is not open to review.—Gilbert v. Maggord, 1 Scam. 471 ; Jackson v. Warren, 32 Ill. 331 ; Thayer v. Peck, 93 id. 357 ; Diversey v. Johnson, id. 547; Page v. People, 99 id. 418.’” The suit was commenced by attachment, and it is contended ther

1919The Supreme Court has said: “In Skakel v. People, 188 Ill. 291 , on page 294, we say: ‘Every error must be specifically pointed out in the assignment of errors (Swift & Co. v. Fue, 167 Ill. 443 ), so clearly that from the showing the error is manifest (Gibler v. City of Mattoon, 167 Ill. 18 ), and an error not assigned is not open to review.’ ” Berry v. City of Chicago, 192 Ill. 154 .

1911In that case the court held: “Every error must he specifically pointed out in the assignment of errors so clearly that from the showing error is manifest, and an error not assigned is not open to review,” thus reaffirming what was said in Skakel v. People, 188 Ill. 291 ; Swift & Co. v. Fue, 167 Ill. 443 ; Gibler v. City of Mattoon, 167 Ill. 18 .

1905In Berry v. City of Chicago, 192 Ill. 154 , on page 155, it is said: “In Skakel v. People, 188 Ill. 291 , on page 294 we say: ‘Every error must be specifically pointed out in the assignment of errors, (Swift & Co. v. Fue, 167 Ill. 443 ,) so clearly that from the showing error is manifest, (Gibler v. City of Mattoon, 167 Ill. 18 ,) and an error not assigned is not open to review.—Gilbert v. Maggord, 1 Scam. 471 ; Jackson v. Warren, 32 Ill. 331 ; Thayer v. Peck, 93 id. 357 ; Diversey v. Johnson, id. 547; Page v. People, 99 id. 418.’” The suit was commenced by attachment, and it is contended ther

1905In Berry v. City of Chicago, 192 Ill. 154 , on page 155, it is said: “In Skakel v. People, 188 Ill. 291 , on page 294 we say: ‘Every error must be specifically pointed out in the assignment of errors, (Swift & Co. v. Fue, 167 Ill. 443 ,) so clearly that from the showing error is manifest, (Gibler v. City of Mattoon, 167 Ill. 18 ,) and an error not assigned is not open to review.—Gilbert v. Maggord, 1 Scam. 471 ; Jackson v. Warren, 32 Ill. 331 ; Thayer v. Peck, 93 id. 357 ; Diversey v. Johnson, id. 547; Page v. People, 99 id. 418.’” The suit was commenced by attachment, and it is contended ther

2025Tate, 2012 IL 112214, ¶ 10 . ¶ 73 A. Mr. Carrillo’s Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Direct Appellate Counsel ¶ 74 Mr. Carrillo argues that he made a substantial showing of a violation of his sixth amendment right to counsel based on the failure of his appellate counsel to argue on direct appeal that the trial court’s refusal to allow him to present an expert witness on the effects of date rape drugs was an abuse of discretion necessitating the reversal of his conviction.

2024During the second stage, the circuit court must determine whether the petition and any accompanying documentation make a substantial showing of a violation of constitutional rights. 725 ILCS 5/122-6 (West 2020); Cotto, 2016 IL 119006, ¶ 27 ; Tate, 2012 IL 112214, ¶ 10 ; Madison, 2023 IL App (1st) 221360, ¶ 32 .