People v. Ligon
Illinois Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Thomas
Chief Justice Kilbride and Justices Freeman, Gar-man, Karmeier, Burke, and Theis concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
At issue is whether the federal constitution requires appointment of counsel for indigent postconviction petitioners at the summary dismissal stage whenever the appellate court on direct review has declined to address an ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the facts needed to adjudicate the claim are dehors the record and thus cannot be resolved on direct review. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the constitution does not require the appointment of…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Douglas v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Pennsylvania v. FinleySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Massaro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Ross v. MoffittSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- People v. ColemanIllinois Supreme Court · 1998
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- People v. EnglishIllinois Supreme Court · 2013
- People v. VeachIllinois Supreme Court · 2018
- People v. SnowAppellate Court of Illinois · 2012
- People v. JohnsonIllinois Supreme Court · 2019
- People v. LigonIllinois Supreme Court · 2016
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.