conviction hearing act he filed it and it was summarily dismissed at the first stage based soley on the circuit court's finding that he failed to comply with the requirements of section one twenty two d h one the same question have rejected the analysis and the result in the case in the case it is now before you as well as in people people be henderson which is actually consistent with this court's own holdings in the area of course conviction loss of our henderson is grounded and this court's repeated recognition that  petition can be technically incomplete in both form and content and still survive first stage review the allegations are to be construed liberally the factual allegations are to be taken as true position to meet all the requirements they are there exists for people trying to make filings in court and so what we do with we give we give them a little slack basically we allow them to age pleading which does not necessarily conform that doesn't necessarily say more that doesn't necessarily say every relevant fact that the science enough to enable a court to determine whether he has stated the revelle both anybody who needs to to fire once the file of his conviction petition the other problem with this is that we can't assume that all indigent people who even understand what it means even have a signature line he's obviously struggling with form but he has he has contact yes but the other thing with this is that if we're going to dismiss without prejudice will with the state has suggested it which would be where the trunk or specify an amount of time in which to refile is that the court would have to figure out how to determine how much time very last day you know that it becomes actually it could be a device to extend the amount of time in which to file i don't know if this really applies or not but section one twenty two dash five i believe i know justice freeman has has positive that this should be interpreted as applying to all the all aspects of post conviction here in the act that in the second half of one twenty two dash five it says that the court cannot extend the time for the original filing and the state's proposition would seem to go contrary to that and top of that the most important thing though is that by requiring compliance with the affidavit requirement in the original failing we would be imposing an obstacle too many prisoners efforts to file a pro se p c and that would defeat the purpose of the post conviction hearing there because our whole idea here the whole act exists for us to be able to find injustices that are to ensure that there is no injustice that occurred off the record and to in to allow indigent people to bring these things to the cour s attention within the time in a timely fashion and to impose a procedural formal obstacle would serve no good purpose the petition does present the affidavit does not contribute to a court's decision as to to one twenty two d two and then after the event indicates whether or not the claims are arguable in fact whether or not they're likely to be able to be supported by facts if this thing is allowed to go forward hearing i i suppose at this point i should i should briefly address our position regarding the appropriate relief should should you runners agree with me  ninety days have passed since mr harmless institution was back at it is to tissue and was not dismissed as frivolous and therefore we say that his car should be remanded for a second stage proceedings and as we reversed and remanded the causes for second stage proceedings so in the first case where the trial court actually did make a finding of frivolousness the relief was to send the case to to the appellate court for appellate review  verified petition but under defendant's wording of the statute no rational defendant would comply with one twenty two dash one b there's essentially no consequence for failure to comply once it gets to second stage proceedings note verifying affidavit and on the other side if counsel or petitioner does comply with the rule he risks a perjury prosecution if he has lied in the petition or piece later says something under oath  inconsistent with fission i'm not here to debate that likelihood of that risk but there is something on the other side and no downside for failing to comply it is unreasonable to infer from the general assembly language that it's unreasonable to believe that the general assembly would include this provision while at the same time creating no incentive for a defendant to comply where defendant has like a counter incentive not to buy and i would banned under the ordinary civil rules there is no advertising affidavit requirement so this seems to be something of a deliberate choice that there's something about the post conviction proceedings that the general assembly believes that a verifying affidavit is necessary where it's not necessary under the ordinary civil war so there must be some consequence before the second stage proceedings the question then is what consequence did the general intend and i will i will start by saying that this court need not decide in this case whether the ninety day clock starts based on the filing unverified petition however i can understand that it might want to do that in this case the petition was dismissed within the ninety days however we could certainly argue that because the one twenty two dash one b says alternatively in the ordinary case when there's and it's often the case in when there's conditions upon filing such as service of process that dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate remedy  hammond makes a pretty interesting point goes and doesn't shave that we are we're opening up a whole new can of worms to new issues to be raised for years of this procedure and wouldn't it be more prudent since we already have a clear framework to just treat all known jurisdictional procedural defects the same it might be more convenient in this case in the case of unverified petitions however would contradict the language of the statute  clear legislative intent but it would not necessarily be more convenient in the case of petitions filed in the wrong circuit court and that's right there in the exact same statutory provision and defendant has said well there's no statutory basis for dismissing an unverified petition without prejudice but a petition filed in the wrong circuit court where you could just transfer there is no statutory provision for that either and there's no statutory provision for dismissing that without prejudice we could imagine job for the legislature the legislature could do that however it it has not done so what it has done is when the legislature does not act he could issue a can step in when the legislature provides a statutory requirement the lad just the legislature wants the penance and petitioners to comply with that and there should be some consequence to encourage compliance and so yes in those cases it just like with service of process in some have their who's conviction not because they approach the litigants but because you know prisoners so good to restrictions imposed by the jailers and they have limited resources  can some fashion a remedy in part by ordering compliance with the barricade requirement within a certain number of days and in the absolute worst case scenario where a defendant says that he can't you know defend files an unverified petition the circuit court dismisses it without prejudice and says you know refile with a verified affidavit petitioner writes and says i can't get access to a notary well first of all we we believe that well we know that the trial court can basically let it slide by allowing the ninety days to run and letting it go to second stage proceedings that would fix the problem in the individual case even if that fails and petitioners the petition is eventually denied for failure comply once petitioner can get access to a notary and we don't think that there's indefinite lack of access to a notary in the prisons i don't i don't think anyone is positive that petitioner can then file a verified petition if it's on time or he can argue lack of culpable negligence and that seems like it would be a successful argument so there is there are layers of protection even if petitioner does not have access to a notary i would also note that the occasional lack of access to a notary did not prevent this court and holland's from dismissing petitions with prejudice because of failure to file an affidavit in compliance with one twenty three dash that exists in one twenty two vs two for example or even one twenty two d h one c you know where the defendant either complies or has to provide an explanation for why he can't i think that is actually a strong indication that this was something a function that the wedge later originally anticipated and the chinese would handle it's a rather it's a quick unexplained provision that it should be completely should be verified by affidavit which again this is a common requirement for a filing we are not certainly saying that you should never be verified by affidavit but we're saying that this is handled at the second stage when the at this attorney that can much it is way more easy for an attorney to to obtain a notarized signature than it is for a prisoner to get a signature notarized while in prison moreover  in a position to explain to his client what perjury is why what you're saying what you're what the what the legal significance of having your signature notarized and out perhaps to make sure that his client is not committing you suggesting here that if it goes to second stage the attorney can notarize the affidavit the problem is gone or is it still a basis for objection by the state well i think if i think if the defendant after being defect is it still a basis for the state to object that it was not properly commenced stores that passed and if it's passed doesn't that mean no petitions ever have to be in order arise until second stage court does an independent examination and just determines a limited examination just determines are these claims arguable in law in fact and this long as they are then we let it go to the point where we appoint counsel i do know that this was both to hand the interest to manage the number of situations that are filed to be able to sort out the ones that just plainly are not with the claim this is just not they may be in prison because it is so difficult they may prefer to have an attorney to help them but i don't think that hurts anything here the the affidavit itself does not have any bearing and whether or not