Finley motion in Illinois

2026Id. § 122-1(a)(1); People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1, 9 (2009).

2024See Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d at 9 . ¶ 15 In the memorandum that accompanies its Finley motion, OSAD first discusses the issue of whether the defendant’s postconviction petition sets forth the gist of a constitutional claim.

2025People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458, 473 (2006). ¶ 15 OSAD has concluded that the instant appeal lacks merit, and has filed a Finley motion to withdraw as appellate counsel.

2023People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458, 473 (2006). ¶ 29 As noted supra, the defendant’s appointed appellate counsel, OSAD, has filed a Finley motion to withdraw as counsel, along with an accompanying memorandum of law, and the defendant, though provided with a copy of the Finley motion and memorandum, has not filed any 8 type of response with this court.

2024People v. Durr, 215 Ill. 2d 283, 296 (2005). 5 ¶ 20 As previously mentioned, the defendant’s appointed attorney on appeal, OSAD, has filed a Finley motion to withdraw as counsel.

2022People v. Durr, 215 Ill. 2d 283, 296 (2005). 6 ¶ 27 As previously noted, the defendant’s appointed appellate attorney, OSAD, has concluded that this appeal lacks merit, and on that basis, it has filed a Finley motion to withdraw and a supporting legal memorandum.

2023People v. Johnson, 208 Ill. 2d 118, 129 (2003). 5 ¶ 17 As previously stated, the defendant’s court-appointed appellate attorney, OSAD, has filed a Finley motion and legal memorandum, seeking to withdraw as counsel on the ground that this appeal lacks merit.

2022People v. Johnson, 208 Ill. 2d 118, 129 (2003). ¶ 39 As previously noted, the defendant’s appointed appellate attorney, OSAD, has filed a Finley motion to withdraw as counsel.

2021This court agrees with OSAD that the ruling was not erroneous and that any argument to the contrary would lack merit. ¶ 20 The Act provides a procedural mechanism through which a criminal defendant may assert that his constitutional rights were substantially violated during the proceedings that resulted in his conviction. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(a)(1) (West 2018); People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444, 455 (2002).

2021This court agrees with OSAD that these two potential issues are wholly without merit and that this appeal does not present any meritorious issue. 9 ¶ 25 In regard to the first of the two potential issues identified by OSAD, i.e., the unreasonable- assistance issue, this court notes that the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) provides a means by which a person convicted of a criminal offense may assert that he suffered a substantial denial of a federal or state constitutional right “in the proceedings which resulted in his or her conviction.” 725 ILCS 5/122-1(a)(1) (West 2018); see also People v

2025See Cordrey v. Prisoner Review Board, 2014 IL 117155 , ¶ 17 (collecting cases). ¶ 20 OSAD, in its legal memorandum supporting the Finley motion in the instant appeal, discusses the case of Murphy v. Raoul, 380 F. Supp. 3d 731 (N.D.

2025See Cordrey v. Prisoner Review Board, 2014 IL 117155 , ¶ 17 (collecting cases). ¶ 20 OSAD, in its legal memorandum supporting the Finley motion in the instant appeal, discusses the case of Murphy v. Raoul, 380 F. Supp. 3d 731 (N.D.

2024This does not even suggest, much less prove, that Hails’ testimony before the grand jury was false. ¶ 17 To establish a factual basis for a guilty plea, “[a]ll that is required to appear on the record is a basis from which the judge could reasonably reach the conclusion that the defendant actually committed the acts with the intent (if any) required to constitute the offense to which the defendant is pleading guilty.” People v. Barker, 83 Ill. 2d 319, 327-28 (1980).

2023People v. Jones, 213 Ill. 2d 498, 505 (2004). ¶ 31 As previously mentioned, the defendant’s appointed attorney on appeal, OSAD, has filed a Finley motion to withdraw as counsel, along with a legal memorandum in support of the motion.

2022OSAD notes that our supreme court has stated that the one-act, one-crime doctrine— which was articulated by our supreme court in People v. King, 66 Ill. 2d 551 (1977)—“is not constitutionally mandated.” People v. Artis, 232 Ill. 2d 156, 164 (2009).

2021Manifest error is error that is “clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Morgan, 212 Ill. 2d 148, 155 (2004). ¶ 23 In the memorandum accompanying its Finley motion, OSAD discusses whether the defendant, at the evidentiary hearing on his postconviction petition, succeeded in proving by a preponderance of the evidence that plea counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance, and whether the circuit court therefore erred manifestly when it denied the petition.

2020(West 2014)) allows state prisoners to “assert that their convictions were the result of a substantial denial of their rights under the United States Constitution or the Illinois Constitution.” People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 379 (1998).

2020Our Illinois Supreme Court has stated emphatically that the Apprendi decision “does not apply retroactively to causes in which the direct appeal process had concluded at the time that Apprendi was decided.” People v. De La Paz, 204 Ill. 2d 426, 429 (2003).

2020As previously mentioned, the defendant’s appointed counsel on appeal, OSAD, has filed a Finley motion to withdraw, on the ground that this appeal lacks merit. 5 ¶ 13 The Act provides a mechanism by which a criminal defendant may assert that his conviction was the result of a substantial denial of his constitutional rights. 725 ILCS 5/122-1 (West 2016); People v. Delton, 227 Ill. 2d 247, 253 (2008).