ILCS » Chapter 725 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

725 ILCS 5/122-2.1 (2026)

(a) Within 90 days after the filing and docketing of each petition, the court shall examine such petition and enter an order thereon pursuant to this Section

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 5/122-2.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 122-2.1)
    Sec. 122-2.1. (a) Within 90 days after the filing and docketing of each petition, the court shall examine such petition and enter an order thereon pursuant to this Section.
        (1) (Blank).
        (2) If the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment
    
and the court determines the petition is frivolous or is patently without merit, it shall dismiss the petition in a written order, specifying the findings of fact and conclusions of law it made in reaching its decision. Such order of dismissal is a final judgment and shall be served upon the petitioner by certified mail within 10 days of its entry.
    (b) If the petition is not dismissed pursuant to this Section, the court shall order the petition to be docketed for further consideration in accordance with Sections 122-4 through 122-6.
    (c) In considering a petition pursuant to this Section, the court may examine the court file of the proceeding in which the petitioner was convicted, any action taken by an appellate court in such proceeding and any transcripts of such proceeding.
(Source: P.A. 103-51, eff. 1-1-24.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,253 cases (606 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: People v. Blair, 831 N.E.2d 604 (Ill. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Blair, 831 N.E.2d 604 (Ill. 2005). · cites it 14× “1(a); 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2002). "Thus, the biggest change wrought to the Act by virtue of the 1983 amendment was that counsel was appointed to an indigent petitioner only after the court initially reviewed the petition and only if the court did not dismiss the…”
People v. Brown, 923 N.E.2d 748 (Ill. 2010). · cites it 10× “), citing 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a) (West 2006). In addition to being distinguishable on the basis acknowledged by the dissent, the capital cases cited are, more importantly, inapposite because they involve application of an entirely different standard for dismissal.”
People v. Edwards, 757 N.E.2d 442 (Ill. 2001). · cites it 7× “725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a) (West 1998). At this stage, the petition need only present the "gist" of a constitutional claim.”
People v. Collins, 782 N.E.2d 195 (Ill. 2002). · cites it 7× “See 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(1) (West 2000). It is plainly inappropriate to rely on these decisions in this case, which is concerned solely with the requirements a noncapital post-conviction petition must meet at the summary dismissal stage.”
People v. Etherly, 801 N.E.2d 99 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 18× “725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(West 2000). We hold when the application of waiver or procedural default raises questions of procedural compliance or requires fact finding, resolution of disputed facts or consideration of matters outside the record, first-stage dismissal based on waiver or…”
People v. Boclair, 789 N.E.2d 734 (Ill. 2002). · cites it 6× “" 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2000). The State does not have an opportunity to raise any arguments against the petition during this summary review stage.”
People v. Hodges, 912 N.E.2d 1204 (Ill. 2009). · cites it 4× “725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2006). If the court does not dismiss the petition as frivolous or patently without merit, then the petition advances to the second stage, where counsel may be appointed to an indigent defendant (725 ILCS 5/122-4 (West 2006)) and where the State is…”
People v. Rivera, 763 N.E.2d 306 (Ill. 2001). · cites it 6× “See 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1 (West 1998). However, the court found that defendant had stated the gist of a meritorious claim in both claims (i) and (vi).”
People v. Johnson, 2021 IL 125738 (Ill. 2021). · cites it 4× “725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2016)). The Cook County circuit court determined that, although defendant was currently imprisoned for the registration violation, he lacked standing to seek postconviction relief from the unlawful restraint conviction because he was no longer…”
People v. Robinson, 838 N.E.2d 930 (Ill. 2005). · cites it 5× “See 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2000). Twelve days after the order of dismissal was entered, the clerk served the order on petitioner by certified mail.”
People v. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450 (Ill. 2017). · cites it 2× “725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2014); see also Edwards , 197 Ill.”
People v. Tate, 2012 IL 112214 (Ill. 2012). · cites it 3× “2d at 10 (quoting 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2006)). A petition may be summarily dismissed as frivolous or patently without merit only if the petition has no arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
Show all 1,253 citing cases →
— 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(2) — 3 cases
McCorker v. Lashbrook (N.D. Ill. 2018).
People v. Griffin (Ill. App. Ct. 2001).
People v. Ledbetter (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).
— 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a) — 116 cases
People v. Brown, 923 N.E.2d 748 (Ill. 2010). “), citing 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a) (West 2006). In addition to being distinguishable on the basis acknowledged by the dissent, the capital cases cited are, more importantly, inapposite because they involve application of an entirely different standard for dismissal.”
People v. Edwards, 757 N.E.2d 442 (Ill. 2001). “725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a) (West 1998). At this stage, the petition need only present the "gist" of a constitutional claim.”
People v. Whitfield, 840 N.E.2d 658 (Ill. 2005).
People v. Perez, 2014 IL 115927 (Ill. 2014).
People v. Perez, 2014 IL 115927 (Ill. 2014).
— 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(1) — 17 cases
People v. Collins, 782 N.E.2d 195 (Ill. 2002). “See 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(1) (West 2000). It is plainly inappropriate to rely on these decisions in this case, which is concerned solely with the requirements a noncapital post-conviction petition must meet at the summary dismissal stage.”
People v. Tenner, 794 N.E.2d 238 (Ill. 2003).
People v. Harris, 794 N.E.2d 181 (Ill. 2002).
People v. De La Paz, 791 N.E.2d 489 (Ill. 2003).
People v. Rivera, 763 N.E.2d 306 (Ill. 2001). “See 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1 (West 1998). However, the court found that defendant had stated the gist of a meritorious claim in both claims (i) and (vi).”
— 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) — 931 cases
People v. Edwards, 757 N.E.2d 442 (Ill. 2001). “725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a) (West 1998). At this stage, the petition need only present the "gist" of a constitutional claim.”
People v. Blair, 831 N.E.2d 604 (Ill. 2005). “1(a); 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2002). "Thus, the biggest change wrought to the Act by virtue of the 1983 amendment was that counsel was appointed to an indigent petitioner only after the court initially reviewed the petition and only if the court did not dismiss the…”
People v. Boclair, 789 N.E.2d 734 (Ill. 2002). “" 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2000). The State does not have an opportunity to raise any arguments against the petition during this summary review stage.”
People v. Collins, 782 N.E.2d 195 (Ill. 2002). “See 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(1) (West 2000). It is plainly inappropriate to rely on these decisions in this case, which is concerned solely with the requirements a noncapital post-conviction petition must meet at the summary dismissal stage.”
People v. Hodges, 912 N.E.2d 1204 (Ill. 2009). “725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2006). If the court does not dismiss the petition as frivolous or patently without merit, then the petition advances to the second stage, where counsel may be appointed to an indigent defendant (725 ILCS 5/122-4 (West 2006)) and where the State is…”
— 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(b) — 184 cases
People v. Robinson, 838 N.E.2d 930 (Ill. 2005). “See 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2000). Twelve days after the order of dismissal was entered, the clerk served the order on petitioner by certified mail.”
People v. Johnson, 794 N.E.2d 294 (Ill. 2002).
People v. House, 2021 IL 125124 (Ill. 2021).
People v. Pitsonbarger, 793 N.E.2d 609 (Ill. 2002).
People v. Whitfield, 840 N.E.2d 658 (Ill. 2005).
— 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(c) — 76 cases
People v. Blair, 831 N.E.2d 604 (Ill. 2005). “1(a); 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2002). "Thus, the biggest change wrought to the Act by virtue of the 1983 amendment was that counsel was appointed to an indigent petitioner only after the court initially reviewed the petition and only if the court did not dismiss the…”
People v. Brown, 923 N.E.2d 748 (Ill. 2010). “), citing 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a) (West 2006). In addition to being distinguishable on the basis acknowledged by the dissent, the capital cases cited are, more importantly, inapposite because they involve application of an entirely different standard for dismissal.”
People v. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450 (Ill. 2017). “725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2014); see also Edwards , 197 Ill.”
People v. Fields, 2020 IL App (1st) 151735 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
People v. Sanders, 2016 IL 118123 (Ill. 2016).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.