The PEOPLE v. Williams, 264 N.E.2d 697 (Ill. 1970). · Go Syfert
Search
The PEOPLE v. Williams, 264 N.E.2d 697 (Ill. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases · …the only affidavit that petitioner could possibly have furnished, other than his own sworn statement, would have been that of his attorney
199 citation events (133 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Small (illappct, 2019-10-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) People v. Small
Ill. App. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the difficulty or impossibility of obtaining such an affidavit is self-apparent.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) People v. Brown
Ill. App. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the difficulty or impossibility of obtaining such an affidavit is self-apparent.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) People v. Douglas
Ill. App. Ct. · 2011 · signal: cf. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the only affidavit that petitioner could possibly have furnished, other than his own sworn statement, would have been that of his attorney
examined Cited as authority (quoted) People v. Douglas (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 2011 · signal: cf. · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
the only affidavit that petitioner could possibly have furnished, other than his own sworn statement, would have been that of his attorney
examined Cited as authority (rule) People v. Love (3×) also: Cited "see"
Ill. App. Ct. · 2025 · confidence medium
Our supreme court has determined that this narrow exception typically applies in cases involving ineffective assistance of counsel claims since the “ ‘difficulty or impossibility of obtaining such an affidavit is self-apparent.’ ” People v. Hall, 217 Ill. 2d 324, 333-34 (2005) (quoting People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Mitchell
Ill. App. Ct. · 2024 · confidence medium
Thus, in People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 3-4 (1970), our supreme court held that an allegation in a verified petition about trial counsel’s representation warranted an evidentiary hearing, even though the allegation was “improbable” on its face.
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Edouard
Ill. App. Ct. · 2024 · confidence medium
As to both of these potential witnesses, “[t]he difficulty or impossibility of obtaining such an affidavit is self- apparent.” People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Edouard
Ill. App. Ct. · 2024 · confidence medium
As to both of these potential witnesses, “[t]he difficulty or impossibility of obtaining such an affidavit is self- 8 No. 1-22-1462 apparent.” People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Oliveros
Ill. App. Ct. · 2024 · confidence medium
Additionally, when a first-stage petition alleges the ineffective assistance of counsel, as defendant did here alongside his Brady/Napue claims, the “difficulty or impossibility of obtaining such an affidavit [from trial counsel] is self-apparent.” People v. Hall, 217 Ill. 2d 324, 333-34 (2005) (quoting People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hunt (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 2023 · confidence medium
Our courts recognize that, in postconviction proceedings alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, postconviction petitions need not attach counsel’s affidavit attesting to his or her own ineffectiveness, as the “difficulty or impossibility of obtaining such an affidavit is self-apparent.” People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Reyna (2×) also: Cited "see"
Ill. App. Ct. · 2022 · confidence medium
People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970). ¶ 18 Ordinarily, a defendant is required to file a supporting affidavit or other evidence attached to a postconviction petition in order to survive summary dismissal.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lindsey (2×) also: Cited "see"
Ill. App. Ct. · 2022 · confidence medium
However, the “[f]ailure to attach independent corroborating documentation or explain its absence may *** be excused where the petition contains facts sufficient to infer that the only affidavit the defendant could have furnished, other than his own sworn statement, was that of his attorney.” People v. Hall, 217 Ill. 2d 324, 333 , 841 N.E.2d 913, 919 (2005) (citing Collins, 202 Ill. 2d at 68 ; People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 , 264 N.E.2d 697, 698 (1970)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Stephenson
Ill. App. Ct. · 2021 · confidence medium
People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sowell
Ill. App. Ct. · 2021 · confidence medium
However, the “[f]ailure to attach independent corroborating documentation or explain its absence may *** be excused where the petition contains facts sufficient to infer that the only affidavit the defendant could have furnished, other than his own sworn statement, was that of his attorney.” People v. Hall, 217 Ill. 2d 324, 333 , 841 N.E.2d 913 , -8- 919 (2005) (citing Collins, 202 Ill. 2d at 68 ; and People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 , 264 N.E.2d 697, 698 (1970)). ¶ 26 Here, defendant’s pro se postconviction petition raised several claims of error, and the record indicates defendant …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ramsey
Ill. App. Ct. · 2021 · confidence medium
People v. Hall, 217 Ill. 2d 324, 333-34 (2005) (in reversing second-stage dismissal of claim that trial counsel’s ineffectiveness led defendant to accept guilty plea, explaining that defendant did not need to provide trial counsel’s affidavit); People v. Williams, -24- 1-20-0070 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970) (reversing dismissal of postconviction petition in which defendant alleged that he was induced to plead guilty by his attorney’s representations, despite lack of supporting affidavits, where “the only affidavit that petitioner could possibly have furnished, other than his own sworn statem…
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Davis
Ill. App. Ct. · 2020 · confidence medium
The “ ‘difficulty or impossibility of obtaining such an affidavit is self- apparent.’ ” Id. at 333-34 (quoting People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gonzalez
Ill. App. Ct. · 2017 · confidence medium
Similarly, in People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970), the petitioner alleged that his constitutional rights had been violated because of misrepresentations which had been made to him by his attorney while the State contended that the petition was insufficient to entitle the petitioner to a hearing because it was not accompanied by supporting affidavits.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gonzalez
Ill. App. Ct. · 2016 · confidence medium
Similarly, in People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970), the petitioner alleged that his constitutional rights had been violated because of misrepresentations which had been made to him by his attorney while the State contended that the petition was insufficient to entitle the petitioner to a hearing because it was not accompanied by supporting affidavits.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Barghouti
Ill. App. Ct. · 2014 · confidence medium
Our supreme court also has held that courts should excuse the absence of affidavits in which attorneys must confess their errors, because the “difficulty or impossibility of obtaining such an affidavit is self-apparent.” People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970), quoted in People v. Hall, 217 Ill. 2d 324, 333-34 (2005).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Teran
Ill. App. Ct. · 2007 · confidence medium
Accordingly, we denied appellate counsel’s motion to reconsider and entered an order stating that “there is arguable merit in the contentions that (1) section 122 — 2 requires available objective or independent corroboration; (2) a defendant’s own affidavit provides corroboration that is neither objective nor independent and thus does not satisfy section 122 — 2; and (3) the requirement of objective or independent corroboration is excused where a claim is based on private conversations between attorney and client.” We referred appellate counsel not only to Hall but also to People v…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Teran
Ill. App. Ct. · 2007 · confidence medium
Accordingly, we denied appellate counsel's motion to reconsider and entered an order stating that "there is arguable merit in the contentions that (1) section 122--2 requires available objective or independent corroboration; (2) a defendant's own affidavit provides corroboration that is neither objective nor independent and thus does not satisfy section 122--2; and (3) the requirement of objective or independent corroboration is excused where a claim is based on private conversations -6- No. 2--05--1103 between attorney and client." We referred appellate counsel not only to Hall but also to Pe…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hernandez
Ill. App. Ct. · 2004 · confidence medium
Collins acknowledged the continued validity of the holding in People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 , 264 N.E.2d 697, 698 (1970), which did not require the submission of extrinsic evidence to corroborate the defendant’s allegations or an explanation of the absence of such evidence if, as is the case here, the petition contains facts from which a court can easily infer that “ ‘the only affidavit that defendant could possibly have furnished, other than his own sworn statement, would have been that of his attorney.’ ” Collins, 202 Ill. 2d at 68 , 782 N.E.2d at 199 , quoting Williams, 47 I…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Payne
Ill. App. Ct. · 2002 · confidence medium
Relying on People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970), defendant asserts, “The difficulty or impossibility of obtaining such an affidavit is self-apparent.” Defendant argues that, due to this difficulty, “the explanation for the lack of corroborating evidence or affidavits can be inferred from the facts alleged” in the petition.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Collins (2×)
Ill. · 2002 · confidence medium
Williams, 47 Ill.2d at 2 [ 264 N.E.2d 697 ].
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Thompkins
Ill. · 1998 · confidence medium
See People v. Olinger, 176 Ill. 2d 326, 341-42 (1997); People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 3-4 (1970).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Thompkins
Ill. · 1998 · confidence medium
See People v. Olinger , 176 Ill. 2d 326, 341-42 (1997); People v. Williams , 47 Ill. 2d 1, 3-4 (1970).
examined Cited "see" People v. Hall (3×)
Ill. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Collins, 202 Ill.2d at 68 , 270 Ill.Dec. 1 , 782 N.E.2d 195 , quoting People v. Williams, 47 Ill.2d 1, 4 , 264 N.E.2d 697 (1970).
cited Cited "see" People v. Hall
Ill. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Collins , 202 Ill. 2d at 68 , quoting People v. Williams , 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970).
cited Cited "see, e.g." People v. Harris
Ill. App. Ct. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1 (1970).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Sanabria
Ill. App. Ct. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence medium
In People v. Hall, the court stated that “[f]ailure to attach independent corroborating documentation or explain its absence may *** be excused where the petition contains facts sufficient to infer that the only affidavit the defendant could have furnished, other than his own sworn statement, was that of his attorney.” 217 Ill. 2d 324, 333 (2005); see also People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970) (where the only affidavit that the petitioner could have furnished, other than his own statement, would have been that of his attorney, the Act’s affidavit requirement was relaxed). ¶ 50 In a…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. McCoy
Ill. App. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Hall, 217 Ill. 2d at 333-34 ; see also People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970). ¶ 18 The rule in Hall and Williams–that a defendant need not provide independent support for a claim grounded in statements between defense counsel and the defendant–is not relevant to the portion of defendant’s claim that was grounded in allegations that counsel failed to seek out exculpatory evidence.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. McCoy
Ill. App. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Hall, 217 Ill. 2d at 333-34 ; see also People v. Williams, 47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970). -5- 2014 IL App (2d) 100424-B ¶ 18 The rule in Hall and Williams—that a defendant need not provide independent support for a claim grounded in statements between defense counsel and the defendant—is not relevant to the portion of defendant’s claim that was grounded in allegations that counsel failed to seek out exculpatory evidence.
The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Robert Williams, Appellant
42293.
Illinois Supreme Court.
Nov 17, 1970.
264 N.E.2d 697
Jerome J. Roberts, of Chicago, (Jenner & Block, of counsel,) for appellant., William J. Scott, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Edward V. Hanrahan, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (James B. Zagel, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert A. Novelee and Arthur L. Belkind, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People.
William J. Scott.
Cited by 80 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 60%
Citer courts: Appellate Court of Illinois (2)
Mr. Justice Crebs

delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant, Robert Williams, pleaded guilty in the circuit court of Cook County to two indictments charging armed robbery and was sentenced to the penitentiary for terms of not less than three years nor more than seven years on each indictment with the sentences to be served concurrently. Subsequently, defendant filed a pro se petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, par. 122 — 1 et seq.) which was dismissed by said court without a hearing, and this appeal is from that order of dismissal.

In his petition defendant alleged, among other things, that his constitutional rights were violated in that he was induced to plead guilty by representation of his attorney that the State would agree to a sentence of six months to one year in the county jail instead of seeking a sentence of 40 to 80 years in the penitentiary if he went to trial, and further, that even after the court imposed a sentence of three to seven years, his counsel whispered to him that the court would call him back and give him one year in the county jail. The petition, though sworn to by defendant, was unsupported by any other affidavits.

The State argues that the petition was properly dismissed and an evidentiary hearing denied because, contrary to the requirements of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, satisfactory affidavits were not attached to the petition, nor were there any reasons given for the absence of such affidavits, and that the petition itself failed to state facts establishing a deprivation of constitutional rights.

The facts of this case are almost identical with those in People v. Washington, 38 Ill.2d 446. There it was alleged that the attorney made the same promises both before and after sentence. The only distinction is that in Washington the petitioner attempted to explain the absence of accompanying affidavits by alleging that he was unable to obtain them either from his attorney or his sister, who supposedly overheard the promise, because of his incarceration and indigence. We held that petitioner’s verified petition was sufficient to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing; that if in fact there was an agreement that defendant would receive a lesser sentence than that imposed, defendant’s constitutional rights were violated and the judgment entered could not stand; that though the defendant’s sworn allegation might seem improbable, yet the allegation remained undisputed and a hearing should have been held to determine its truth or falsity. In addition, we held that the fact that defendant’s appointed attorney did not seek to amend the pro se petition and supply supporting affidavits did not deprive defendant of his right to a hearing.

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. Ashley, 34 Ill.2d 402), and the function of the pleadings is to determine whether petitioner is entitled to a hearing. (People v. Airmers, 34 Ill.2d 222.) Though it is true that dismissal of nonmeritorious petitions is undeniably within the contemplation of the Act (People v. Morris, 43 Ill.2d 124), yet it is equally true that where a claim of substantial constitutional denial is based on assertions beyond the record it is contemplated that evidence should be taken. People v. Sigafus, 39 Ill.2d 68.

Here the record is meager, to say the least. Denial of a substantial constitutional right is factually alleged by petitioner and denied by the State with nothing more to guide the court in its determination. Under such circumstances the dispute cannot be resolved without some evidentiary inquiry into the truth or falsity of petitioner’s factual allegations.

The State’s only contention is that the petition is insufficient to entitle petitioner to a hearing in that it was not accompanied by supporting affidavits. But the only affidavit that petitioner could possibly have furnished, other than his own sworn statement, would have been that of his attorney who allegedly made the misrepresentation to him. The difficulty or impossibility of obtaining such an affidavit is self-apparent. In People v. Wegner, 40 Ill.2d 28, where similar allegations of misrepresentations of counsel as to sentence were made, we held that dismissal of the petition without a hearing was improper; that defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing even though the State had filed a counteraffidavit of defendant’s attorney in which he denied making the statement attributed to him. It would certainly follow that if a defendant is entitled to a hearing despite a counteraffidavit of his attorney denying the allegations of the petition then a defendant should not be denied a hearing merely because he did not obtain a supporting affidavit from the attorney who represented him at the time of his plea.

Under such circumstances, to so strictly construe the Act as requested by the State would defeat its very purpose by denying petitioner a hearing on the factual issue raised by the pleadings. However, 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. We do find that in this case the sworn statements of petitioner warrant a fair inference of a violation of constitutional rights which are not negated by the State nor by the record, and that an evidentiary hearing is required to determine the truth or falsity of petitioner’s allegations.

One other contention of defendant which we should consider is that the hearing on the voluntariness of his plea should have been heard by a judge other than the trial judge. He cites People v. Washington, 38 Ill.2d 446, in support of his contention. We find that case not in point, for the agreement there was alleged to include defendant’s attorney, the prosecutor and the judge, and because it appeared that the trial judge would be a witness we made the obvious conclusion that another judge should preside at the hearing. A trial judge has no reason to excuse himself unless it appears that he will be a material witness to events outside the record or upon a showing of actual prejudice. People v. Newell, 41 Ill.2d 329.

For the reasons stated we hold that the circuit court of Cook County improperly allowed the motion to dismiss and the judgment of said court is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to overrule the motion and proceed to a hearing on the issues presented.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Schaefer and Ward, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.