good morning may please the court my name is pamela rubio from the office of the state appellate defender and i represent jose cruz this case comes down to the lack of a notary stamp on a single document the appellate court refused to review the merits of mr cruise's allegations in claims because of this singular technical defect yet mr cruz made these allegations in claims in multiple documents and orally at second stage proceedings and neither the trial court nor the state had a problem with the form of that the appellate court's refusal to rule on the merits was not only fundamentally unfair but also not supported by the act this case is very similar to the recent case of people into the petitioner filed a successive petition without filing the requisite motion for leave to file that successive petition the trial court determined that it could rule on the merits and did sell but the appellate court refused to review the trial court ruling this court reversed holding that the trial court had the authority to address the petition on the merits if it seemed if it deemed fit to do so this court also found that the appellate court should not have refused to review the merits of the trial court's ruling because it was fully able to do so this court should find the same in this case as well mr cruise presented his allegations and claims relating to his lack of culpable negligence both orally and in multiple file documents at second stage if the trial court had a problem with the form of these pleadings it could have pursuant to section one twenty two dash five of the post conviction hearing act ordered amendments or a new cleaning but it did not do so if it was concerned about the truth of the assertions or the identity of the signer it could have asked mr cruz to make these amendments but it did not and for good reason which is that the purpose of the verification affidavit and the evidentiary requirements were met in this case notarization has no relation to the substance of the petitioners constitutional allegations notarization is merely to confirm the identity of the signer but that purpose was met in this case when mr cruz appeared personally in front of the trial court and presented his claims orally there was no question that he was the signer of that document the purpose of a verification affidavit is to attest to the truth of the allegations again that purpose was met in this case not only by his oral arguments on his claims at second stage but also in the form of two supplemental petitions that the trial court gave him permission to file at second stage the statutory language of the act does not actually even require that allegations of lack of  the verification relates to the person that is the verification requirement relates to confirming the identity of the person initially com reach second stage mr cruz is given the opportunity to file new pleadings or amend his pleadings or file supplemental documents the purpose of the verification affidavit is not really relevant because again that second stage the parties personally present he's available for cross examination he could be put under oath and section one twenty two dash five at that stage applies because section one twenty two deaths five is the second is the section of the act that lays out the procedures that take place during second stage proceedings and that section gives the trial court discretion to not only grant requests to amend pleadings but also to order pleadings amendments to the pleadings so if the trial court is dissatisfied with the form or method by which the petitioners presenting his claims it can make it can order that the defendant correct those technical defects this court has used other evidence besides evidence contained in verified pleadings and in eviden consider allegations of lack of culpable not in previous cases for example in people versus perkins this court determined that post conviction counsel fulfilled his duty to amend and present allegations of lack of culpable negligence by just orally asserting those claims and that was not only do we have the oral assertions in this case but we also have multiple documents that second supplemental petition that mr cruz filed was verified by late and exactly six months after his p l a was denied and he explained that he used the old law to come to that calculation that prison law clerks whom he relied on because of his problems with the english language gave him this misinformation and he was not corrected by a post conviction attorney who he had been corresponding with who had been investigating the clay the his claims and asked for more information even after the never actually ruled on the merits of mr cruz's claims and remain on his appropriate because the supreme court should not become the court of first review on these these claims and the issue is recurring and as recently as last week the appellate court in an in an opinion determined that it has expressed the stated that it has not yet gotten guidance on this subject from the court and mention that this this case was pending that it should not have been dismissed on timeliness grounds at first stage based sample clare and it was reminded down to the trial court and that was about two thousand and four that was conviction petition in two thousand and six and he found multiple supplemental documents and during it and it was remanded to second stage so the second stage the second time around took that long technical compliance in the should this case and in all pro se cases should not be required but a permissive definition should be should be applied because of the nature of pleadings pro se petitions as this court has commented are drafted by petitioners with little vehicle knowledge or training they are prisoners with limited resources and subjected to restrictions imposed to them by their jailers if a correctional institute does not provide the means to regularly appear before a notary a particular procedure petitioner is without the means to comply with the technical requirements of the act under these circumstances it would be fundamentally unfair to with the document a motion for leave to file the documents probably later file does that prove two thousand yes that was his second motion for leave to file a supplemental slash amended amended petition in fact his motion for leave to file that first supplemental postcondition petition was no so if there are no further questions it was both fundamentally unfair and legally incorrect for the appellate court not to reach the merits of mr cruz's allegations and claims because of the lack of a single notary stamp this court should mr chief justice your honors may please the court on behalf of the people the state of illinois my name is tracy and i'm an assistant state's attorney from cook county an unverified and unsupported post conviction petition is legally insufficient to establish the claim under the act the appellate court properly affirmed the dismissal of petitioners post conviction petition where he failed to comply with the requirements of the act and filed an unverified and unsupported without the verification requirement there is there are no consequences for lying that it's correct are so he's not subject to perjury if the if the if it's not  any consistency there where your honor in perkins what happened in that case the oral assertions council made oral assertions they were a legal argument they were not factual allegations so that is a big distinction in perkins does this court should not extend perkins to to allow that that to be done you know on the plane and on an ambiguous language of the act attached all factual allegations must be verified by affidavit the acts the affidavit requirements of section one twenty two das one b and one twenty two dash two are not limited to first stage proceedings but applying equal force and effect to all petitions regardless of their file that the first or the second stage of the proceedings petition or seeks to extend the appellate court holdings of henderson  court's in direct conflict with cowan's and dothan have excused defendants at the first stage proceedings from complying with the x explicit requirements that all petitions must be verified by affidavit and  allegations must be supported by affidavit or other proper cooperative evidence petitioner relies on these are called carcases to support his position and seeks to the eliminate and seeks to eliminate the application of the acts of verification and supporting evidence requirement at the second stage of proceedings as well to the extent the petitioner relies on henderson parker terry and will barn for his position those cases are wrongly decided your honor moreover those cases should not be extended to apply the second stage proceedings petitioner's attempts to partition section one twenty two deaths one from the rest of one twenty two from the rest of section one twenty two i'm sorry to see his attempt to partition  twenty two s one c from the rest of that section must be rejected the fact that section one twenty two days five allows circuit court discussions to permit the filing of supplemental an amended  permit petitioner to bypass the verification requirement of one twenty two das one b or the supporting evidence requirement of one twenty two das two section one twenty two deaths five refers to cleanings thus it is inextricably linked to the pleading which relates to all petitions filed by petitioners and those must be verified to interpret one section one twenty two dash one c and one twenty two deaths five as permitting any and all unverified generalized filings to satisfy the sex section one twenty two deaths one b and one twenty two deaths two runs contrary to statutory construction two except petitioners assertion that he is not required to verify or support his supplemental petition containing his factual allegations of culpable negligence would allow petitioners to file baseless unverified and unsupported claims something he's not allowed to do petitions the legislature did not intend such an absurd result the act is a legislative creation the plain language of the verification affidavit requirement and the supporting evidence requirement demonstrates that the legislature expects factual allegations to be fair fight and supported and if verification a crime that's are not met or the support of evidence requirement is not met that is a valid basis for dismissal at the first or the second stage of the proceedings and again the affidavit requirement is so important because those facts are accepted as true they have legal significance petitioner's position that he is not required to verify or support his lack of  verified position petition or supported by affidavit that he substantially complied and initially honors his people would maintain that he is for fear that this claim or a failed to raise that in either brief in this petition for a hearing on his petition for leave to appeal nonetheless the people do not agree that there can be substantial compliance the pleading a requirement of the act is mandatory without therefore cation by affidavit the petition is legally deficient it's meaningless and this is not a difficult  this is not difficult to meet the legislature set forth the affidavit requirement to be met at the first stage and the act contemplates that the mark at most first stage proceedings most petitioners are going to be pro c and this requirements get satisfied all the time in fact petitioner did it and every other pleading that he filed in his initial petition filed in one thousand nine hundred ninety in his fight petition filed in january eighteenth of two thousand and eight in his response to the people's motion to dismiss and the second before then no you are correct your honor and actually the first time that he raised the specific allegations of lack of culpable negligence for actually in his first supplemental petition that was filed and yes in june of zero eight you are his substantial compliance claims petition argues he's a pro se petitioner he did enough and he substantially complied you know the issue of culpable negligence arises at the second stage proceedings and in this case petitioner had appeal a counsel appointed to represent him at the second stage proceedings and he knowingly discharged that attorney and when he discharge state attorney and chose to represent himself it then became his responsibility to ensure that this book pleadings complied with the act both procedurally and factually it was his burden to ensure that he had a legitimate claim petitioner sophisticated he filed petition after petition he filed motions in response that is refuted by the record time and time again also your honor in terms of compliance a substantial compliance he argues before your honor's that the she that the department of corrections didn't provide the means to regularly obtain notary service and he relies on a letter from a senior paralegal the first again we don't get this is not properly before you it was not filed at the lower level of the trial court and secondly it's irrelevant this letter it's not dated it's filing matter if you look at petitioners first supplemental claim the first supplemental petition he alleged and that his first of many petition that the prisons paralegals are incompetent and offered little or no assistance at all other than  documents petitioner failed to comply with the verification and supporting acquirements of his act and it's just a petition his supplemental petition was legally deficient none the less this court can in the interest of judicial economy conducted  conviction counsel before he dismissed him talking about things that he wanted included and exhibits that he wanted added you also have at the second stage when he became unhappy with his counsel he files a written motion seeking leave to file his own supplemental your honor's today and also the record reveals that his arguments before the post conviction court he was reading from an argument that he had written down he also complains about lockdowns in an adequate  asserts no details as to the lockdown periods or how those periods if they that they even existed are deprived him of his opportunity to timely file he also alleges again that he received incorrect advice from prison mock clerks and that he failed to tell him that the filing deadline had passed her boy he's writer too defendant to petitioner boycie did not represent him there was no end petitioner produces no supporting documentation that he hired or even corresponded with boycie prior to the lapse of the statutory filing deadline and lastly his actual innocent claim he found no affidavits from pedro or the investigator clements in support of his claims that pedro was held hostage during the trial by the state your honor if there's no further questions the plain language of section one twenty two dash one b and one twenty two dash two supports the public court's judgment dismissing petition as untimely post conviction petition counsel argues that a reversal of the appellate court's ruling in this case would lead to a floodgate of opening a floodgate to baseless allegations raised during second stage proceedings but that would be prevented the trial court has the power  power as for the state's argument that we forfeited the substantial compliance argument as argued in our reply brief it was although we did not use the term substantial compliance in the petition for leave to appeal this argument is intertwined with our argument that the technical compliance is not required and that the appellate court erred in this case because the trial court had the opportunity to rule  in fact this state's motion to dismiss because of the delay in all the proceedings in this case the state first filed its motion to dismiss raising the affirmative defense of timeliness was not filed until february twenty eighth two thousand and eight and it was in may of two thousand and eight that the defendant first filed his response his replied in the state's motion and then again in june and that's the document at issue in this case the delay i think is attributed to the the procedural length of this case but as soon as the state raised its affirmative defense mr kris responded with his with his assertions and  finally in in response the argument that it was the defendant's responsibility because he decided to go pro se and that he couldn't he couldn't prove or he didn't argue that a notary wasn't available for the was never interested in such a fashion and so when mr cruz filed his supplemental petitions he had no reason to believe that he had to explain why his one single document was not no