finding " [t]he facts relating to this claim do not appear on the face of the original appellate record, and res judicata and waiver therefore do not apply in this instance"
How later courts described this case
- finding " [t]he facts relating to this claim do not appear on the face of the original appellate record, and res judicata and waiver therefore do not apply in this instance"
- res judicata did not bar postconviction claim where the facts supporting the claim did not appear in original appellate record
- “Issues that could have been presented on direct appeal, but were not, are waived.”
- in order to establish prejudice, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE KILBRIDE, concurring in part and dis-
senting in part:
The majority correctly reverses in part the judgment of the circuit court and remands this cause for an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s Brady claims. Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth in my dissents in People v. Hickey, 204 Ill. 2d 585, 636-40 (2001) (Kilbride, J., dissenting), and People v. Simpson, 204 Ill. 2d 536, 581-85 (2001) (Kilbride, J., dissenting), I believe that the majority fails to grant defendant the constitutionally required relief of a new trial conducted in accordance with the new supreme court rules governing capital cases. The procedures in capital cases prior to this court’s adoption of the new rules were inherently unreliable and did not adequately protect a defendant’s constitutional rights. Consequently, since the new rules were promulgated to address the deficiencies of constitutional dimension that regularly occurred under the old system, the rules must be applied retroactively to all capital cases. See People v. Caballero, 179 Ill. 2d 205, 220-21 (1997).