# People v. Ortiz

> Appellate Court of Illinois · September 8, 2008 · 385 Ill. App. 3d 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9730003

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SALVADOR ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois
- **Decided:** September 8, 2008
- **Citations:** 385 Ill. App. 3d 1; 324 Ill. Dec. 715; 896 N.E.2d 791; 2008 Ill. App. LEXIS 902
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McBRIDE
- **Judges:** Gordon, Cahill, McBride
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9730003

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that "[b]ecause the postconviction trial judge is in the best position to observe and weigh the credibility of witnesses testifying at an evidentiary hearing, his findings of fact will not be overturned unless those findings are manifestly erroneous"
- discussing the combined effect of all the evidence available to the defendant on a successive postconviction petition, and whether, when added to the evidence presented at trial, it would likely lead to a different result
- discussing the cumulative evidence now available to the defendant, in order to determine whether the result would probably change at retrial

## Opinion text

JUSTICE McBRIDE, specially concurring:
I write to specially concur because I agree that defendant should be given a new trial based upon the evidence presented to the trial court which, in my opinion, meets the cause-and-prejudice test outlined in section 122 — 1(f) (725 ILCS 5/122 — 1(f) (West 2004)). Therefore, the majority discussion about case precedent since the 2004 enactment as to whether actual innocence remains an exception to the cause-and-prejudice requirement necessary for the filing of successive petitions is unnecessary. I agree with the analysis in all other respects; therefore, I specially concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9730003. Public record. Not legal advice.