cause-and-prejudice standard is more exacting than the gist-of-a-constitutional-claim
standard applied at the first stage to initial post-conviction petitions.
2. Defendant made a substantial showing of cause for his failure to raise
his constitutional claim in his initial petition. At the time defendant filed his
initial petition, the statute of limitations then in effect required the filing of the
post-conviction petition within three years of the date of defendant’s conviction.
725 ILCS 5/122-1(c) (West 2000). As defendant was forced by this limitations
period to file his initial petition while his direct appeal was pending, he could not
raise a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in that petition.
3. Defendant failed to make a sufficient showing of prejudice, even applying
the gist standard. Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
was founded on the direct appeal record, but he failed to provide any support
from the record for that claim. The court refused to second-guess counsel’s
decision to pursue certain issues on appeal when nothing more than defendant’s
bare contentions were offered to support his argument that meritorious issues
were left undeveloped or omitted.
(Defendant was represented by Assistant Defender Lauren Bauser,
Chicago.)
§9-1(i)(2)
People v. Guerrero, 2012 IL 112020 (No. 112020, 2/17/12)
1. A successive post-conviction petition may be filed only with leave of the
court. (725 ILCS 5/122-1(f)). Leave to file may be granted only if the petitioner
demonstrates “cause” for failing to bring the claim in the initial post-conviction
petition and “prejudice” resulting from that failure. “Cause” requires a showing
of an objective factor that impeded the petitioner’s ability to raise a specific claim
during the initial post-conviction proceeding. “Prejudice” requires a showing that
the claim which was not raised in the first proceeding so infected the trial that
the conviction or sentence violated due process. Both “cause” and “prejudice”
must be shown for the trial court to grant leave to file a subsequent petition.
2. The Supreme Court concluded that defendant who entered a guilty plea
for an agreed sentence, and who claimed that the trial court had failed to
admonish him of the mandatory supervised release term, could not show “cause”
for failing to raise the issue in his initial post-conviction proceeding. Although
defendant claimed that he first learned of the MSR term several years after the
initial post-conviction proceeding was complete, he testified that he knew he
would be required to serve a parole term when he was transferred to adult DOC.
Because the record showed that defendant was in an adult institution during the
49
