Post-Conviction Relief
Post-Conviction Relief
Post-conviction relief provides individuals with a critical opportunity to challenge wrongful convictions or unjust sentences after the direct appeal process has concluded. An experienced post-conviction attorney examines trial records for constitutional violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, or prosecutorial misconduct that may warrant case review. This complex legal process requires in-depth knowledge of federal and state procedural rules, evidentiary standards, and appellate court precedents to identify viable grounds for relief.
Illinois Post-Conviction Relief Law
The Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act, codified at 725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq., provides a statutory mechanism allowing criminal defendants to assert that their federal or state constitutional rights were substantially violated during trial or sentencing. This collateral remedy permits defendants to raise constitutional issues that were not, and could not have been, previously adjudicated on direct appeal. Illinois post-conviction proceedings occur in three distinct stages: initial summary review to determine if the petition is frivolous or patently without merit, a second stage where appointed counsel evaluates whether the petition makes a substantial showing of a constitutional violation, and a third stage evidentiary hearing if such a showing is made.
Defendants must file post-conviction petitions within three years of conviction if no direct appeal was filed, or within specific timeframes following the conclusion of direct appeals. The petition must be verified by affidavit, filed with the clerk of court where conviction was entered, and must specifically state that relief is sought under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. To obtain relief, petitioners must demonstrate a substantial deprivation of federal or state constitutional rights during proceedings that produced the challenged conviction or sentence.
How Our Firm Helps
Our firm meticulously reviews trial transcripts, investigates unexplored evidence, and consults with forensic experts to uncover constitutional errors that denied clients fair trials. Comprehensive case evaluation identifies all available legal remedies, from overturning convictions to securing sentence reductions or new trials through strategic written advocacy before state and federal courts. By maintaining close communication with clients throughout the post-conviction process, our firm ensures that personal circumstances, rehabilitation efforts, and case-specific facts are thoroughly documented and persuasively presented.
Attorney David Lewarchik brings over twenty years of post-conviction experience to every case, having handled more than 200 appeals throughout his distinguished career. Mr. Lewarchik is a graduate of a top law school, providing him with exceptional legal training and analytical skills. As a former clerk and staff attorney for the appellate court, Mr. Lewarchik gained invaluable insight into the judicial decision-making process that informs his strategic approach to post-conviction litigation. This unique insider perspective enables our firm to anticipate judicial concerns, address procedural barriers proactively, and craft persuasive legal arguments that resonate with appellate judges reviewing post-conviction petitions. Whether securing release from wrongful imprisonment or correcting excessive sentences, our extensive experience provides clients with the strongest possible chance of obtaining justice when traditional appeals have been exhausted.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between a direct appeal and a post-conviction petition?
A direct appeal argues that the trial court made legal errors based on the existing trial record, such as improperly admitted evidence or incorrect jury instructions. A post-conviction petition raises new issues of constitutional violations that are outside the trial record, such as ineffective assistance of counsel or newly discovered evidence of innocence.
How long do I have to file a post-conviction petition in Illinois?
The deadline under 725 ILCS 5/122-1(c) is complex and strictly enforced. Generally, if a direct appeal was filed, defendants have six months to file a post-conviction petition. This six-month period begins ninety days after the Illinois Supreme Court reaches its final decision. The ninety-day period represents the amount of time a defendant has to file a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. To calculate the proper timeframe, count 90 days from the Illinois Supreme Court decision and add six months. If no direct appeal was filed, the deadline is three years from the conviction date, though exceptions exist for claims of actual innocence.
Can I file more than one post-conviction petition?
Generally, Illinois law permits only one post-conviction petition. However, a petitioner may file a successive petition if the petitioner can show cause as to why the new claim was not raised sooner and also show that the absence of the claim prejudiced the defendant at trial. Examples of "cause" include ineffective assistance of initial post-conviction counsel, newly discovered evidence that was not available earlier despite reasonable diligence, or changes in constitutional law announced by the United States Supreme Court after the first petition was filed. "Prejudice" means demonstrating that the claim not raised in the initial post-conviction petition so infected the trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violated due process. This cause and prejudice standard is strictly enforced, and successive petitions are heavily disfavored unless these requirements are satisfied. Alternatively, successive petitions may be considered if the petitioner presents newly discovered evidence establishing actual innocence that was not previously available despite reasonable diligence.
What are common grounds for post-conviction relief?
The most frequent successful claims involve ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence of actual innocence, prosecutorial misconduct such as hiding favorable evidence (Brady violations), and constitutional violations that substantially affected trial outcomes.
