A New Illinois Supreme Court Ruling Protects Your Right to Raise Ineffective-Counsel Claims After Appeal
The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Carroll clarified when post-conviction claims survive a forfeiture challenge. A Chicago post-conviction lawyer explains.
On May 21, 2026, the Illinois Supreme Court decided People v. Carroll, 2026 IL 131360, and the ruling matters to anyone weighing a post-conviction petition in Illinois. The court corrected a mistake that can cost defendants their best claims: treating an ineffective-assistance argument as forfeited simply because the defendant already knew the underlying facts during the direct appeal. That is the wrong test, the court held unanimously.
What happened in Carroll
A Jersey County jury convicted Roger Carroll of first degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to 65 years. The appellate court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. Carroll then filed a petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, 725 ILCS 5/122-1, raising several claims that his trial lawyer had performed ineffectively. One claim faulted counsel for never moving to suppress a three-hour police interview that Carroll says he gave after asking for his attorney.
The circuit court dismissed the petition at the second stage. The appellate court affirmed on a different ground, ruling that Carroll forfeited his ineffective-assistance claims because he knew the relevant facts and therefore could have raised them on direct appeal.
What the court held
The Supreme Court rejected that reasoning. A post-conviction claim is forfeited only when the supporting facts appear on the face of the original appellate record. See People v. Williams, 209 Ill. 2d 227, 233 (2004). Whether the defendant personally knew those facts does not control. A direct appeal is confined to the trial record, so a claim that depends on evidence outside that record, like an affidavit describing what counsel failed to investigate, could not have been raised on appeal in the first place. That claim survives to the post-conviction stage.
Carroll's claims fit that rule. His suppression argument rested on his own affidavit and his prior attorney's affidavit, neither of which existed in the trial record. So the court held the appellate court erred in finding forfeiture.
The decision did not free Carroll. The court still affirmed the dismissal, ruling that his petition failed to make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Carroll won the procedural point and lost on the merits.
Why this matters to you
Many of the strongest post-conviction claims live outside the trial record. A lawyer who failed to interview an alibi witness, failed to retain an expert, or failed to file a motion to suppress leaves no trace in the transcript of what should have happened. Carroll confirms that those claims belong in a post-conviction petition and are not lost just because you understood the facts while your appeal was pending.
The ruling also draws a clear line between two stages of your case. Issues that show up plainly in the trial record must be raised on direct appeal or they are forfeited. Issues that require new evidence belong in the petition. Sorting your claims into the right vehicle is the difference between a petition that advances and one that a court dismisses on a technicality.
Carroll carries a second lesson. The court reviewed whether post-conviction counsel provided a reasonable level of assistance, the standard the Act requires, and found that counsel met it. Post-conviction proceedings do not carry the same constitutional right to counsel as a trial. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987). The quality of the lawyer who drafts your petition shapes whether your claims are framed and supported well enough to survive a motion to dismiss.
Talk to a Chicago post-conviction lawyer
If you are considering a post-conviction petition in Illinois, the record from your trial and direct appeal determines which claims you can still raise and how to support them. Lewarchik Law LLC handles post-conviction relief, criminal appeals, and civil appeals in Illinois and Michigan. David Lewarchik, a former appellate court staff attorney, reviews the record and explains your options before you commit to anything.
Schedule a free consultation: 312-517-3877 (Illinois) or 313-312-8484 (Michigan).
This article discusses a published Illinois Supreme Court opinion for general information. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
