People v. Alcozer

Docket No. 108109.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. ISAAC

ALCOZER, Appellant.

Opinion filed March 24, 2011.

CHIEF JUSTICE KILBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court,

with opinion.

Justices Freeman, Thomas, Garman, Karmeier, Burke, and Theis

concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

At issue in this appeal is the constitutionality of section 22–105 of

the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/22–105 (West

2006)), providing for imposition of fees and costs upon summary

dismissal of a postconviction petition summarily dismissed as frivolous

or patently without merit pursuant to section 122–2.1 of the Post-

Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122–2.1 (West 2006)).

Petitioner, Isaac Alcozer, contends that section 22–105 violates his

rights to due process and equal protection.

Upon summarily dismissing Alcozer’s pro se petition for

postconviction relief, the circuit court of Cook County imposed fees

and costs. Alcozer appealed only the order imposing fees and costs.

The appellate court affirmed, but modified the costs and fees. No.

1–07–2092 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). We

allowed Alcozer’s petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff.

Feb. 26, 2010). We affirm the judgment of the appellate court.

I. BACKGROUND

Alcozer was convicted of first degree murder following a bench

trial and sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment on the murder charge,

with an additional 25 years for personally discharging the firearm that

caused the victim’s death. The appellate court affirmed Alcozer’s

conviction and sentence on direct appeal. People v. Alcozer, No.

1–04–0806 (2005) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).

On April 19, 2007, Alcozer filed a pro se postconviction petition.

In his pro se postconviction petition, Alcozer presented two

arguments: (1) that he was illegally arrested and his pretrial motion to

quash arrest should have been granted; and (2) that he received

ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to

continue challenging the legality of his arrest.

On June 21, 2007, the trial court summarily dismissed Alcozer’s

pro se postconviction petition, finding that Alcozer failed to raise the

claims on direct appeal and that res judicata prevented consideration

of Alcozer’s postconviction claims. The trial court’s order concluded

that “the issues raised and presented by [Alcozer] are frivolous and

patently without merit.” In addition to dismissing Alcozer’s petition,

the trial court ordered that Alcozer pay a total of $359 in costs and

fees, pursuant to section 22–105 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/22–105

(West 2006)). The order imposing fees and costs found:

“[Alcozer’s petition for postconviction relief] was entirely

frivolous in that: 1. it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact;

and 2. the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein

are not warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous

argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of

existing law or the establishment of new law.”

On appeal, Alcozer challenged the assessment of costs and fees,

as well as their constitutionality. The appellate court affirmed the trial

court’s imposition of costs and fees, but adjusted the total due to

$105. No. 1–07–2092 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule

23.)

-2-

II. ANALYSIS

In this appeal, Alcozer argues that section 22–105 of the Code

violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the United

States and Illinois constitutions. He contends that section 22–105 is

unconstitutional as applied to him and other prisoners who file initial

petitions for postconviction relief because it is a pecuniary punishment

that “acts as a financial interposition between an indigent petitioner

and his right to the courts.” In the alternative, Alcozer submits that

this court need not consider his constitutional argument if section

22–105 is construed as not requiring the imposition of a monetary

penalty every time an indigent prisoner’s pro se postconviction

petition is summarily dismissed.

The State argues that section 22–105 is constitutional because it

is rationally designed to serve a legitimate government purpose, “to

discourage prisoners from filing frivolous pleadings and recoup some

of the systemic costs generated by the filing of such pleadings.” The

State contends that Alcozer forfeited his alternative argument by not

specifically raising the issue in his petition for leave to appeal or

before the appellate court. See People v. McCarty, 223 Ill. 2d 109,

122 (2006) (the failure to raise an issue in a petition for leave to

appeal results in the forfeiture of that issue); People v. Robinson, 223

Ill. 2d 165, 174-75 (2006) (dismissing appeal where the only claim the

defendant argued in his brief was not raised in his petition for leave to

appeal or before the appellate court).

Alcozer responds to the State’s forfeiture argument that his

petition for leave to appeal properly raised the issue by arguing that:

“[I]n People v. Brown, No. 106243 (petition for leave to

appeal allowed, March 29, 2008), this Court will decide

whether ‘frivolous’ means the same in section 22–105(b)(1) of

the Code of Civil Procedure and section 122–2.1 of the Post-

Conviction Hearing Act.”

Alcozer states that his petition for leave to appeal asked this court to

hold his case in abeyance for resolution of Brown, as it may be

dispositive of the issues raised in Alcozer’s case. Ultimately, this court

declined to consider the construction of section 22–105 in Brown

because the fees and costs were vacated and, thus, construction of

section 22–105 was no longer an issue. See People v. Brown, 236 Ill.

-3-

2d 175, 182 (2010).

We reject the State’s argument that Alcozer has forfeited this

argument by failing to raise it in his petition for leave to appeal. There

is no question that a determination of whether “frivolous” means the

same in section 22–105(b)(1) of the Code and section 122–2.1 of the

Post-Conviction Hearing Act was raised in Alcozer’s petition for leave

to appeal. Additionally, even “[w]hen an issue is not specifically

mentioned in a party’s petition for leave to appeal, but it is

‘inextricably intertwined’ with other matters properly before the court,

review is appropriate.” People v. Becker, 239 Ill. 2d 215, 239 (2010)

(quoting People v. McKown, 236 Ill. 2d 278, 310 (2010)). Further, it

is clear that the constitutional issues raised by Alcozer depend upon

construction of section 22–105. It is well settled that courts should

avoid constitutional questions when a case may be decided on other

grounds. Beahringer v. Page, 204 Ill. 2d 363, 370 (2003).

Interpretation of section 22–105 is inextricably intertwined with

the constitutional issues presented in this appeal and, accordingly,

review is appropriate. People v. McKown, 236 Ill. 2d 278, 310 (2010).

Moreover, Alcozer’s argument requires interpretation of the statute

directly related to his constitutional challenge, and we find that this

issue has not been forfeited. See McCarty, 223 Ill. 2d at 123 (an

argument on the interpretation of a statute directly related to a

constitutional challenge is not forfeited).

A. Statutory Interpretation

We now consider Alcozer’s argument that section 22–105 does

not require a monetary penalty be imposed every time an indigent

prisoner’s postconviction petition is summarily dismissed. This issue

requires us to construe section 22–105 to ascertain the meaning of

“frivolous.” Issues of statutory construction involve questions of law

and are subject to de novo review. People v. Howard, 228 Ill. 2d 428,

432 (2008). The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to

ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s intent. People v. Blair,

215 Ill. 2d 427, 442 (2005). The best indication of the legislature’s

intent is the language of the statute, given its plain and ordinary

meaning. Blair, 215 Ill. 2d at 442-43.

Alcozer argues that section 22–105 uses a different standard for

-4-

determining whether a petition is “frivolous” than the standard for

summary dismissal as “frivolous or *** patently without merit” under

section 122–2.1 of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. According to

Alcozer, section 22–105 specifically omits any mention of the

“patently without merit” standard of section 122–2.1, and that section

22–105 is only applicable when a prisoner files a “frivolous” pleading.

The State counters that a petition for postconviction relief summarily

dismissed as “frivolous or *** patently without merit” under the Post-

Conviction Hearing Act is also “frivolous” as defined by section

22–105(b) of the Code.

Section 122–2.1 of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act provides for

the summary dismissal of postconviction petitions “[i]f the court

determines the petition is frivolous or is patently without merit.” 725

ILCS 5/122–2.1 (West 2006). In 1997, the legislature passed Public

Act 90–505 (Pub. Act 90–505, eff. Aug. 19, 1997). Included in this

legislation were provisions on the filing of frivolous lawsuits by

prisoners. Public Act 90–505 added section 22–105 to the Code of

Civil Procedure. See 735 ILCS 5/22–105 (West 2006). At the time

Alcozer filed his petition for postconviction relief, section 22–105 of

the Code provided:

“Frivolous lawsuits filed by prisoners.

(a) If a prisoner confined in an Illinois Department of

Corrections facility files a pleading, motion, or other filing

which purports to be a legal document in a case seeking post-

conviction relief under Article 122 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure of 1963, pursuant to Section 116–3 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure of 1963, in a habeas corpus action under

Article X of this Code, in a claim under the Court of Claims

Act, or in another action against the State, the Illinois

Department of Corrections, or the Prisoner Review Board, or

against any of their officers or employees and the Court makes

a specific finding that the pleading, motion, or other filing

which purports to be a legal document filed by the prisoner is

frivolous, the prisoner is responsible for the full payment of

filing fees and actual court costs.

On filing the action or proceeding the court shall assess

and, when funds exist, collect as a partial payment of any

-5-

court costs required by law, a first time payment of 50% of the

average monthly balance of the prisoner’s trust fund account

for the past 6 months. Thereafter 50% of all deposits into the

prisoner’s individual account under Sections 3–4–3 and

3–12–5 of the Unified Code of Corrections administered by

the Illinois Department of Corrections shall be withheld until

the actual court costs are collected in full. The Department of

Corrections shall forward any moneys withheld to the court of

jurisdiction. If a prisoner is released before the full costs are

collected, the Department of Corrections shall forward the

amount of costs collected through the date of release. The

court of jurisdiction is responsible for sending the Department

of Corrections a copy of the order mandating the amount of

court fees to be paid. Nothing in this Section prohibits an

applicant from filing an action or proceeding if the applicant

is unable to pay the court costs.

(b) In this Section, ‘frivolous’ means that a pleading,

motion, or other filing which purports to be a legal document

filed by a prisoner in his or her lawsuit meets any or all of the

following criteria:

(1) it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact;

(2) it is being presented for any improper purpose,

such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or

needless increase in the cost of litigation;

(3) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions

therein are not warranted by existing law or by a

nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or

reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

(4) the allegations and other factual contentions do not

have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified are

not likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable

opportunity for further investigation or discovery; or

(5) the denials of factual contentions are not warranted

on the evidence, or if specifically so identified, are not

reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.” 735

-6-

ILCS 5/22–105 (West 2006).1

Section 22–105(b) specifically provides for the definition of a

“frivolous” lawsuit. Section 122–1.2 of the Post-Conviction Hearing

Act does not provide a definition of “frivolous or *** patently without

merit.” However, in People v. Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d 89 (2002), this

court examined the meaning of “frivolous or *** patently without

merit” in section 122–2.1 and looked to dictionary definitions:

“ ‘Frivolous’ has been defined as ‘of little weight or

importance: having no basis in law or fact.’ Webster’s Third

New International Dictionary 913 (1993); Black’s Law

Dictionary 677 (7th ed. 1999); accord Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 744, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 498, 87 S. Ct. 1396,

1400 (1967) (legal points ‘arguable on their merits’ are not

frivolous). ‘[P]atently’ means ‘CLEARLY, OBVIOUSLY,

PLAINLY.’ Webster’s Third New International Dictionary

1654 (1993); Black’s Law Dictionary 1147 (7th ed. 1999).

‘[M]erit’ means ‘legal significance, standing, or importance.’

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1414 (1993);

Black’s Law Dictionary 1003 (7th ed. 1999).” Boclair, 202

Ill. 2d at 101.

In Blair, this court relied on the definition of “frivolous or ***

patently without merit” set forth in Boclair in concluding that

“ ‘frivolous or *** patently without merit’ may be defined as having

no basis in law or fact and obviously without legal significance.” Blair,

215 Ill. 2d at 445.

More recently, in People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1, 11 (2009), this

court noted that “[n]either ‘frivolous’ nor ‘patently without merit’ is

defined in the [Post-Conviction Hearing] Act.” Hodges looked to

Boclair, where this court cited Anders in defining “frivolous.” Hodges

recognized that “[u]nder Anders, ‘legal points arguable on their

merits’ are ‘not frivolous.’ ” Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d at 11. Hodges further

explained that Illinois law has used this definition in other contexts and

1

Public Act 95–424, §5, effective January 1, 2008, amended subsection

(a) by inserting “or a second or subsequent petition for relief from judgment

under Section 2–1401 of the Code.”

-7-

specifically cited to section 22–105(b) “defining frivolous pleading as

one which ‘lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact’ ” and to

Supreme Court Rule 137 (Ill. S. Ct. R. 137 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994))

providing for sanctions aimed at deterring frivolous suits or pleadings

“ ‘without any basis in law.’ ”

Based on our case law defining “frivolous or *** patently without

merit” as “having no basis in law or fact and obviously without legal

significance,” we determine that the definition of “frivolous or ***

patently without merit” under section 122–2.1 of the Post-Conviction

Hearing Act is included in the statutory definition of a “frivolous”

lawsuit in section 22–105(b). Thus, a postconviction petition

summarily dismissed as frivolous or patently without merit under

section 122–2.1 of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act is subject to

imposition of fees and costs under section 22–105(b) of the Code.

Alcozer argues that his postconviction petition was summarily

dismissed based on the procedural defects of forfeiture and res

judicata and that procedural defects cannot be deemed frivolous or

patently without merit. We reject this argument. In Blair, this court

specifically ruled that postconviction petitions dismissed on principles

of forfeiture or res judicata are, necessarily, both frivolous and

patently without merit. Blair, 215 Ill. 2d at 445. Blair explained:

“[T]he legislature intended that the phrase ‘frivolous or ***

patently without merit’ encompasses res judicata and

forfeiture. Determinations of res judicata and forfeiture are

inherently legal determinations which may bar relief under the

Act. Thus, an otherwise meritorious claim has no basis in law

if res judicata or forfeiture bar the claim. The legal component

is therefore consistent with ‘frivolous’ defined as ‘of little

weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact.’

(Emphasis added.) Webster’s Third New International

Dictionary 913 (1993); Black’s Law Dictionary 677 (7th ed.

1999); accord Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 18 L.

Ed. 2d 493, 498, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967) (legal points

‘arguable on their merits’ are not frivolous). It is also

consistent with a clear, obvious, or plain lack of ‘merit,’

meaning without ‘legal significance, standing, or importance.’

(Emphasis added.) Webster’s Third New International

-8-

Dictionary 1414 (1993). Black’s Law Dictionary 1003 (7th

ed. 1999). Thus, where res judicata and forfeiture preclude a

defendant from obtaining relief, such a claim is necessarily

‘frivolous’ or ‘patently without merit.’ ” (Emphasis in

original.) Blair, 215 Ill. 2d at 445.

Thus, upon determining that a postconviction petition dismissed

as “frivolous or *** patently without merit” meets the definition of a

“frivolous” lawsuit under section 22–105 of the Code, we now turn

to Alcozer’s constitutional arguments.

B. Whether Section 22–105 Is Constitutional

Alcozer contends that section 22–105 violates his rights to both

due process and equal protection under the law by placing a financial

consideration between him and his statutory right to file an initial

postconviction petition and by targeting him as a “prisoner” to the

exclusion of nonincarcerated petitioners. The State counters that

section 22–105 is constitutional because the General Assembly

rationally designed it to serve a legitimate government purpose: to

discourage prisoners from filing frivolous pleadings and recoup some

of the costs generated by the filing of frivolous pleadings.

We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo. People v.

Malchow, 193 Ill. 2d 413, 418 (2000). “Legislative enactments enjoy

a strong presumption of constitutionality, and the burden rests upon

the challenger to demonstrate the invalidity of a particular statute.”

Kunkel v. Walton, 179 Ill. 2d 519, 529 (1997). A reviewing court has

the duty to construe a statute to uphold its validity whenever

reasonably possible. People v. Huddleston, 212 Ill. 2d 107, 129

(2004). We now consider Alcozer’s due process argument.

1. Due Process

Alcozer contends that section 22–105 of the Code violates his due

process rights because it unfairly subjects him to pecuniary

punishment for attempting to exercise a state-granted postconviction

remedy, in violation of his due process right of meaningful access to

the courts. The State admits that there is a fundamental constitutional

right of access to the courts, but that this right does not encompass

-9-

the right to litigate without expense and fees.

The parties do not dispute that “[i]t is now established beyond

doubt that prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the

courts.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). Alcozer argues

that section 22–105 violates due process because it interferes with a

prisoner’s fundamental right of access to the courts.

We reject Alcozer’s basic premise that section 22–105 interferes

with his right to meaningful access to the courts. The language of the

statute belies this argument. The legislature made clear in section

22–105(a) that “[n]othing in this Section prohibits an applicant from

filing an action or proceeding if the applicant is unable to pay the

court costs” (735 ILCS 5/22–105(a) (West 2006)). In People v.

Conick, 232 Ill. 2d 132, 141 (2008), this court recognized that the

General Assembly enacted section 22–105 “to curb the large number

of frivolous collateral pleadings filed by prisoners which adversely

affect the efficient administration of justice, and to compensate the

courts for the time and expense incurred in processing and disposing

of them.”

From a plain reading of section 22–105, we determine that the

statute does not impinge upon a prisoner’s fundamental right to access

to the courts because fees are assessed only after a legal document is

found to be frivolous. At most, the statute only affects a prisoner’s

right to file frivolous legal documents without being responsible for

the costs, but does not prohibit prisoners from exercising their right

to petition for postconviction relief. We therefore reject Alcozer’s

argument that section 22–105 violates due process and it burdens a

prisoner’s fundamental right of access to the courts.

Alcozer also argues that section 22–105 violates due process

when applied to first-time pro se petitioners for postconviction relief.

As this court has recognized, the purpose of section 22–105 is to

compensate courts for some of the expense incurred in adjudicating

frivolous petitions for postconviction relief, whether initial or

successive. People v. Conick, 232 Ill. 2d 132, 141 (2008). In Conick,

this court stated:

“For the purposes of section 22–105, the status of the petition

as either original or successive is not significant. [Citation.]

The trial court must still examine every request for

-10-

postconviction relief whether it be an initial petition subject to

review under the ‘gist’ standard [citation] or a proffered

successive petition subject to the more exacting cause and

prejudice standard [citation].” Conick, 232 Ill. 2d at 141-42.

Section 22–105 does not impinge upon any prisoner’s right to file

a postconviction petition, whether the prisoner is a pro se first-time

petitioner or a successive petitioner. Accordingly, we reject Alcozer’s

argument that section 22–105 violates due process as applied to first-

time pro se petitioners for postconviction relief.

We also reject Alcozer’s argument that section 22–105 violates

due process because it lacks a mens rea component and its application

is not limited to petitions filed by prisoners who know their claims are

frivolous. Alcozer fails to explain how the lack of a mens rea

component interferes with his right of access to the courts or how this

argument is in any way related to his due process argument.

Under the plain language of the statute, section 22–105 does not

restrict a prisoner’s meaningful access to the courts. Accordingly, we

conclude there is no due process violation based on restriction of

court access. We now consider whether section 22–105 violates equal

protection.

2. Equal Protection

Alcozer argues that section 22–105 violates equal protection on

its face because it treats prisoners who file frivolous pleadings

differently from nonincarcerated persons who file frivolous pleadings.

The State contends that section 22–105 is rationally related to the

state’s interest in maintaining the efficiency of our legal system and

that there is a reasonable basis for distinguishing between prisoners

and others seeking similar relief.

Constitutional challenges to statutes under due process and

equal protection require the same essential analysis. People v.

Kimbrough, 163 Ill. 2d 231, 242 (1994) (“Although expressed in

slightly different language, the standards used to determine the

constitutionality of a statute under the due process and equal

protection clauses are identical.”). It is the nature of the right affected

that dictates the level of scrutiny we employ in determining whether

-11-

the statute meets constitutional requirements. Napleton v. Village of

Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296, 307 (2008). If the challenged statute

implicates a fundamental right or discriminates based on a suspect

classification of race or national origin, the court subjects the statute

to “strict scrutiny” analysis and will uphold the statute only if it is

narrowly tailored to serve a compelling State interest. People v.

Shephard, 152 Ill. 2d 489, 500 (1992); People v. Cornelius, 213 Ill.

2d 178, 204 (2004); Napleton, 229 Ill. 2d at 307. Under an equal

protection analysis, suspect classifications are based on race or

national origin. People v. Botruff, 212 Ill. 2d 166, 176-77 (2004).

If the statute does not affect a fundamental constitutional right or

involve a suspect classification, the rational basis test applies,

requiring the statute bear a rational relationship to the purpose the

legislature intended to achieve by enacting it. Shephard, 152 Ill. 2d at

500. Additionally, “[a] third tier of constitutional scrutiny lies between

deferential rational basis review and strict scrutiny, and is known as

intermediate scrutiny,” and has been applied to review classifications

based on gender, illegitimacy, and those classifications that cause

“certain content-neutral, incidental burdens to speech.” Napleton, 229

Ill. 2d at 308. “To withstand intermediate scrutiny, the legislative

enactment must be substantially related to an important governmental

interest.” Napleton, 229 Ill. 2d at 308.

Prisoners are not a suspect class. Where, as here, the legislation

does not discriminate against a suspect class, the rational basis test

applies. Cornelius, 213 Ill. 2d at 203-04. A statutory classification

meets the rational basis requirement if it the legislation is “rationally

related to a legitimate State goal.” Shephard, 152 Ill. 2d at 500. If any

set of facts can reasonably be conceived to justify the challenged

legislation, the court must uphold its constitutionality. Botruff, 212 Ill.

2d at 177. Whether a rational basis exists for a classification is a

question of law reviewed de novo. In re A.A., 181 Ill. 2d 32, 38

(1998).

Alcozer relies on Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305 (1966), in

arguing that section 22–105 fails under a rational basis review. In

Rinaldi, the Supreme Court struck down a New Jersey law requiring

incarcerated individuals to reimburse the costs of their transcripts

upon denial of appellate relief. The Supreme Court explained that

-12-

“[t]here is no defensible interest served by focusing on th[e]

distinction [between incarcerated and nonincarcerated appellants] as

a classifying feature in a reimbursement statute, since it bears no

relationship whatever to the purpose of the repayment provision.”

Rinaldi, 384 U.S. at 309. The Court observed that the New Jersey law

did not similarly burden “a man who has received a suspended

sentence or been placed on probation, regardless of how high his

subsequent earnings may be,” nor did the law require “repayment at

all from an unsuccessful appellant who has been sentenced only to pay

a fine.” Rinaldi, 384 U.S. at 308. Further, Rinaldi recognized that

once a state establishes avenues of appellate review, those “avenues

must be kept free of unreasoned distinctions that can only impede

open and equal access to the courts.” Rinaldi, 384 U.S. at 310. In

other words, any financial burden tied to the avenues of appellate

review must be applied with an “even hand.” Rinaldi, 384 U.S. at 311.

The Supreme Court has consistently and repeatedly recognized

that when states provide for appellate or collateral review of criminal

convictions, they may not discriminate on the basis of poverty. See

Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956) (requiring a free transcript, or

other means of affording effective appellate review, for indigent

defendants seeking to appeal); Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 (1959)

(clerk must docket indigent petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal

despite inability to pay filing fee); Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708

(1961) (once a state grants a postconviction right, inability to pay

filing fee cannot limit its exercise); Lane v. Brown, 372 U.S. 477

(1963) (inability to pay for transcript cannot hinder appeal from denial

of petition for writ of error coram nobis); Douglas v. California, 372

U.S. 353 (1963) (finding unconstitutional line between rich and poor

where merits of indigent defendant’s first direct appeal are decided

without benefit of counsel); Long v. District Court, 385 U.S. 192

(1966) (indigent defendant must be allowed free transcript to appeal

denial of habeas relief); Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367 (1969)

(indigent defendant must be allowed free transcript of habeas hearing

to facilitate filing new habeas petition in higher court).

Alcozer argues that, like the statute struck down in Rinaldi,

section 22–105 should be struck down because there is no rational

reason to burden prisoners exclusively when nonincarcerated

individuals might also file for postconviction relief, even when the

-13-

purpose is to deter frivolous appeals. We find Alcozer’s reliance on

Rinaldi and the long line of United States Supreme Court cases

misplaced because section 22–105 is entirely distinguishable from

those statutes found unconstitutional. Rinaldi found that the New

Jersey statute violated equal protection because its classification of

those subject to it was unsupported by reason, in that it financially

burdened many prisoners “whose appeals, though unsuccessful, were

not frivolous, and leaves untouched many whose appeals may have

been frivolous indeed.” Rinaldi, 384 U.S. at 309-10. In contrast to the

statute in Rinaldi, section 22–105 was enacted by the General

Assembly “to stem the tide of frivolous filings by prisoners who have

been convicted and, in most instances, have had their ‘cases’ subjected

to additional forms of appellate review.” Conick, 232 Ill. 2d at 143.

We determine that section 22–105 withstands the rational basis

test because the imposition of fees and costs following a frivolous

finding of a prisoner’s document is rationally related to the

legislature’s goal of stemming the tide of frivolous filings by prisoners.

See Botruff, 212 Ill. 2d at 177.

When the challenged legislation can be upheld on any set of facts,

the court must uphold its constitutionality. Botruff, 212 Ill. 2d at 177.

Here, section 22–105 only applies to prisoners who file frivolous

pleadings, a permissible distinction related to the purpose of the

classification to achieve permissible ends. Rinaldi, 384 U.S. at 309.

Accordingly, we hold that section 22–105 does not violate equal

protection of the law.

III. CONCLUSION

We hold that a postconviction petition summarily dismissed

pursuant to section 122–2.1 of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725

ILCS 5/122–2.1 (West 2006)) as frivolous or patently without merit

is subject to imposition of fees and costs under section 22–105 of the

Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/22–105 (West 2006)), as a

frivolous lawsuit filed by a prisoner. We further hold that section

-14-

22–105 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/22–105 (West

2006)) does not violate either due process or equal protection. We

therefore affirm the judgment of the appellate court.

Appellate court judgment affirmed.

-15-