2015 IL App (1st) 131359
SIXTH DIVISION September 25, 2015

No. 1-13-1359

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff

- Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 01 CR 10786 ) SANDY WILLIAMS, ) Honorable ) Kenneth J. Wadas, Defendant -Appellant. ) Judge Presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE DELORT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Rochford and Justice Hoffman concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION ¶ 1 This case is a postconviction sequel to a case heard on direct appeal, and on the merits, not merely by this court, but also by the Illinois Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. Defendant Sandy Williams claims that if he had been represented by better lawyer s, it is arguable that United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas would have changed his deciding vote and invalidated crucial evidence introduced at Williams ’ s trial
. Williams filed a postconviction petition under the Post

- Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122 -1 et seq . (West 2012)). The circuit court dismissed the petition, and we affirm.No. 1-13-1359

- 2 - ¶ 2 The State charged defendant wit h two counts o f aggravated criminal sexual assault, and one count each of aggravated kidna p ping and aggravated robbery. At trial, the State elicited evidence that on February 10, 2000, defendant abducted a woman who was walking home from work
. Defendant forced the vic tim into his car, sexually assaulted her, robbed her of both money and other belongings, and then pushed her out of the car and into the street. The victim ran home, told her mother what happened and the mother called the police. An ambulance arrived and transported the victim to the hospital where she provided a blood sample and a vaginal swab for a sexual assault kit
. The kit was sent to the Illinois State Police crime lab for testing as well
as to Cellmark Diagnostic s Laboratory (Cellmark ) in Germantown, Maryland , for additional testing. ¶ 3 On August 3, 2000, defendant was arrested on an unrelated offense. While in custody, he was required to provide a blood sample for a police database. When defendant ’ s blood sample was tested and analyzed, hi s DNA matched the DNA of the unidentified suspect in the sexual assault . The victim viewed a lineup in which defendant participated, and she identified him as her attacker
. Multiple forensic scientists from the Illinois State Police crime lab t estified during trial concerning the testing , analysis and matching of the forensic evidence
. In particular, forensic scientist Sandra Lambatos testified as an expert witness in forensic biology and forensic DNA analysis
. She stated a match was made between the DN A profile of the assailant in the sexual assault produced by Cellma rk with the DNA profile of defendant from his blood sample
. While she admitted to not personally observing the testing at Cellmark, she did acknowledge that Cellmark was an accredited labo ratory . T he Cellmark report was not introduced into evidence , and Lambatos only referenced the report as background for forming her opinion that the DNA profiles matched
.No. 1-13-1359

- 3 - ¶ 4 Defendant ’ s trial counsel moved to strike the portion of Lambatos ’s testimony concerning Cellmark ’ s testing based on a violation of defendant ’ s sixth amendment right to confrontation . The court denied defendant ’ s motion and ultimately found him guilty on all counts . The court sentenced him to two concurrent terms of natural life in prison for the aggravated criminal sexual assaults, a consecutive term of 60 years in prison for aggravated kidnapping and a concurrent term of 15 years in prison for aggravated robbery. ¶ 5 Defendant appealed his conviction, contending, inter alia , that t he report from Cellmark that Lambatos referenced in her testimony and used in her analysis was testimonial
. Accordingly, he claimed that his right to confrontation was violated when no employee from Cellmark testified at his trial
. In People v. Williams , 385 Ill. App. 3d 359 (2008), this court, with one justice dissenting, affirmed defendant ’ s convictions and held that “ the report was not introduced to prove the truth of Cellmark ’ s results ” and “ consequently the Confrontation Clause was not violated.” Id. at 370. ¶ 6 The Illinois S upreme C ourt subsequently granted defendant ’ s petition for l eave to appeal
. In People v. Williams , 238 Ill. 2d 125 (2010), our supreme court affirmed the lower courts’ findings that Lambatos ’s reference to the Cellmark report di d not violate defendant ’ s right to confrontation because “ the State did not offer Lambatos ’ testimony regarding the Cellmark report for the truth of the matter asserted and this testimo ny did not constitute ‘ hearsay. ’ ” Id. at 150. ¶ 7 The United States Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari
. In Williams v. Illinois , 567 U.S.

___ , 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012 ), a plurality of justices (Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Alito, Breyer and Kennedy) held that the Cellmark report was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather for the sole purpose of “ explaining the assumptions on which thatNo. 1-13-1359

- 4 - [expert] opinion rests .” Id. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 2228 (plurality op.). Consequently , defendant ’ s right to confrontation was not vi olated
. Id
. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 2228. The plurality held, alternatively, that even if the Cellmark report had been admitted into evidence , it still would not have violated defendant ’ s right to confrontation because the “ report was sought not for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used against ” defendant , but rather to find an unidentified criminal on the loose. Id
. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 2228. ¶ 8 Justice Thomas agreed with the plurality that the Cellmark report did not violate defendant’ s right to confrontation, but disagreed with its reasoning
. Id. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 2255 (Thomas, J., concurring). He concluded that the report did not violate defendant ’ s right to confrontation “ solely ” because the report “ lacked the requisite formality and solemnity to be considered testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause. ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id
. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 2255. ¶ 9 Justice Kagan dissented, stating the report “ was made to establish some fact in a criminal proceeding ” and “ identical *** in all material respects ” to other forensic reports the Court had already decided were testimonial
. ( Internal quotation marks omitted .) Id. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 2266 (Kagan, J., dissenting, joined by Scalia, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor, JJ .) ( citing Bullcoming
v. New Mexico , 564 U.S . ___, ___, 131 S. Ct . 2705 , 2717 (2011) , and Melendez

- Diaz v. Massachusetts , 557 U.S. 305, 310 (2009)). ¶ 10 Defendant then filed a pro se postconviction petition , which is the subject of this appeal
. The petition first alleged that his “ trial counsel ” was ineffective for failing to “ question the State ’ s expert witness concerning the partial forensic DNA profile that was completed by a [ sic ] outsourced laboratory .” Second, his petition alleged that his “ trial counsel ” was also ineffective

“ for not raising the constitutional violation argument that the authors (experts) of the report ’ sNo. 1-13-1359

- 5 - [ sic ] effectively certified the report by signing it, thus violating the confrontation clause. ” T he petition concluded by stating that if the report had been deemed certified , Justice Thomas of the United States Supreme Court would have ruled in his favor. Finally, his petition requested additional forensic testing. ¶ 11 D efendant attached three docum ents to the petition to support his second claim : (1) Rule 11.1.2 of the FBI Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories (the FBI Standards), which required “ [a] signature and title, or equivalent identification, of the person(s) accepting responsibilit y for the content of the report; ” (2) a 2008 manual from the Crime Laboratory Accreditation Program of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB), which stated that laboratories accredited with ASCLD/LAB in the “ Biology subdiscipline of DNA will be inspected under * * * the applicable standards of the FBI ’ s Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Labora tories; ” and (3) a transcript containing testimony from Dr. Robyn Cotton, a former manager of research and laboratory director at Cellmark, from a pr oceeding unrelated to defendant’s . Highlighted in the Cotton transcript wa s a portion where Cotton stated that Cellmark was accredited by ASCLD/LAB from 1994 until the laboratory closed in 2005
. Additionally, the petition alleged that in the transcript, Cotton “ testified that, under Cellmark ’ s procedures, when she signs off on a report, the expert is personally vouching for the accuracy of the Report.” ¶ 12 The circuit court dismissed defendant ’ s petition based on procedural grounds because defendant’ s claims could have been raised on direct appeal
. Therefore, the court concluded the

“ doctrine of waiver ” precluded it from entertaining the petition ’ s claims . Alternatively, the courtNo. 1-13-1359

- 6 - noted that even if the petition ’s claims were not “ waive [d],” they were nevertheless meritless
. This appeal followed. ¶ 13 As a threshold matter, we must address the parties ’ dispute regarding whether defendant properly preserved his contention for appeal . On appeal, defendant contends that the court erred in dismissing his petition where it set forth an arguable claim that his “ appellate counsel ” was ineffective arguing before the Un ited States Supreme Court for “ failing to properly respond to a dispositive argument advanced by the State. ” Specifically, defendant argues that appellate counsel should have cited to the documents attached to his petition
. T he State counters, arguing th at defendant ’ s contention on appeal was not included in his petition
. While the State concedes defendant’ s petition and argument on appeal both “ address the general issue of whether the Cellmark report was formal or certified, they assail the performance of different attorneys. ” Accordingly, the State argues defendant forfeited review of his contention on appeal. In response, d efendant argues that we should “ extrapolate[] ” an argument that his appellate counsel was ineffective from his petition and “ deem [] [it] raised as part of the court ’ s liberal construction of the petition ” even though defendant referenced the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel. ¶ 14 Section 122

- 3 of t he Po st
- Conviction Hearing Act (the Act) contains a forfeiture rule. 1 It states that “ [a]ny claim of substantial denial of constitutional rights not raised in the original or an amended petition is waived. ” 725 ILCS 5/122

- 3 (West 2012)
. In People v. Jones , 213 Ill. 2d

1 While section 122- 3 of the Act (725 ILCS 5/122

- 3 (West 2012)) and People v. Jones , 213 Ill. 2d 498, 505 (2004), refer to this rule as a “ waiver ” rule, we no te that later cases refer to this rule as a “ forfeiture ” rule. See, e.g. , People v. Pendleton , 223 Ill. 2d 458, 475 (2006); People v. Reed , 2014 IL App (1st) 122610, ¶¶ 42-43 ; People v. Thoma s , 2014 IL App (2d) 121001 , ¶¶ 4

- 5. Moreover, “forfeiture applies to issues that could have been raised but were not, ” whereas
“ waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right. ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Phipps , 238 Ill. 2d 54, 62 (2010). In the present case, d efendant has not intentionally relinquished a known right, and therefore , we will use the term “ forfeit ure” unless directly quoting the Act or case law using the term “waiver .”No. 1-13-1359

- 7 - 498 (2004), our supreme court stated that this forfeiture rule is not m erely a suggestion for appellate courts
. Id. at 5 05-0 6 ( criticizing this court, stating that it “ has repeatedly overlooked the waiver language of section 122

- 3 and has addressed claims raised for the first time on appeal for various and sundry reasons ”)
. In fact, appellate courts are “ not free, as [the supreme ] court is under its supervisory authority, to excuse, in the context of postconviction proceedings, an appellate waiver caused by the failure of a defendant to include issues in his or her postcon viction petition. ” Id. at 508; see also People v. Pendleton , 223 Ill. 2d 458, 475 (2006) (stating that the appellate court in the case before it that ignored section 122 -3’ s language “ is yet another example of that inappropriate propensity ” to overlook fo rfeiture of arguments not raised in a postconviction petition). Accordingly, we may not excuse a defendant ’ s forfeiture when he argues on appeal a contention not made in his postconviction petition. See People v. Reed , 2014 IL App (1st) 122610, ¶ 43 ( “ Th is court lacks the authority to excuse an appellate forfeiture caused by the failure of a litigant to include issues in his or her postconviction petition.” ). ¶ 15 In analyzing whether defendant has forfeited his contention on appeal, we find instructive both People v. Thomas , 2014 IL App (2d) 121001 and People v. Mars , 2012 IL App (2d) 110695 , where the State argued postconviction defendant s had forfeited their claims on appeal for not raising them in their petition s. ¶ 16 I n Mars , t he defendant ’ s p ostconviction petition alleged that “his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to challenge the sufficiency of the grand jury indictment, which

‘ omitted essential elements of the charges. ’ ” (Emphasis added.) Id. ¶ 11
. The petition also allege d errors by appellate counsel unrelated to the sufficiency of the indictment. Id
. On appeal, the defendant argued that his “ petition sufficiently alleged that appellate counsel was ineffective *** for not arguing that the 2007 indictment should have been dismissed because it chargedNo. 1-13-1359

- 8 - offenses subject to compulsory joinder with the 2005 indictment and violated defendant ’ s right to a speedy trial. ” (Emphasis added .) Id. ¶ 13. ¶ 17 The reviewing court f ound that even with a liberal reading of defendant ’ s petition, it could not construe the allegation in the petition as the argument raised on appeal. Id. ¶ 33
. The court noted that the defendant’ s petition made explicit reference to the ineffectiveness o f his “ ‘ defense counsel ’ ” for not challenging his indictment while on appeal, his argument “ explicitly referred to errors of appellate counsel throughout the document when complaining of deficiencies in his direct appeal. ” Id
. The court further noted that the defendant ’ s petition was
c oherent and organized, setting “ forth the record facts in a logical fashion with appropriate record citations and r ais[ing] specific legal challenges .” Id
. Therefore, the court did not “ have to comb through a mor ass of irrelevancies to try to figure out what defendant meant to raise as constitutional violations .” Id
. Accordingly, the court determined that th e defendant forfeited his contention on appeal. Id. ¶ 18 Conversely, in Thomas , p rior to trial, the circuit court ruled that a statement made by an incarcerated minor, admitting to the murder with which the defendant was charged , was inadmissible because the statement was unreliable , partially because the statement was not corroborated by other evidence. Thomas , 2014 IL App (2d) 121001, ¶ 1 . The minor had confessed to detectives, but later recanted during a video

- recorded interview
. Id
. The defendant’ s postconviction petition alleged “ that [his] appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to allege [his] trial counsel ’s ineffectiveness ” based on his trial counsel ’ s failure to take additional steps to ensure the admissibility of the incarcerated minor ’ s confession. (Emphasis added.) Id. ¶ 2 . The petition also noted that the minor confessed to a jailhouse chaplain
. Id
. O n appeal, the defendant argued that his “ appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue thatNo. 1-13-1359

- 9 - the trial court erred in excluding [the minor ’ s] conversations with the chaplain and for failing to argue that the chaplain ’ s testimony would have corroborated [the minor ’ s] statement to the detectives. ” (Emphasis in original .) Id. ¶ 3. ¶ 19 After summarizing the content of the various arguments in his petition, the court stated that “ [t] he logical conclusion to be d rawn from these allegations is what [the] defendant argues in this appeal : Chaplain Fricks ’ testimony is the ‘ other evidence ’ that should have been admitted to corroborate N.H. ’ s statement to the detectives. ” Id. ¶ 62 . Additionally, the court distinguis hed its case from Mars , stating: “T he petition and the postconviction appellate argument [in Mars ] shared no underlying subject matter and identified different attorneys as having rendered ineffective assistance
. Here, the petition and the postconviction appellate arguments both allege ineffectiveness of appellate counsel for omissions related to the underlying issue of the admissibility of [the minor ’ s] confession.” Id. ¶ 66. Accordingly , the defendant in Thomas had not forfeited his arguments on appeal. Id. ¶ 63. ¶ 20 This case is more analogous to Mars
. This defendant ’ s petition made explicit reference to his “ trial counsel ” being ineffective “ for not raising the constitutional violation argument that the authors (experts) of the report ’ s [ sic ] effectively certified the report by signing it, thus violating the confrontation clause. ” Meanwhile, on appeal, defendant explicitly contends that it was his “ appellate counsel ” who was ineffective in arguing before the United States Supreme Court.No. 1-13-1359

- 10 - ¶ 21 W e acknowledge, and the State has conceded, the underlying subject matter in defendant’s petition is similar to the argument on appeal
. Additionally, defendant’ s petition and his arg ument on appeal directs us to the same three documents that should have been presented on his behalf : (1) Rule 11.1.2 of the FBI Standards; (2) the 2008 manual from ASCLD/LAB; and (3) the transcript from a prior , unrelated proceeding of defendant ’ s in whi ch Dr. Cotton testified
. ¶ 22 However, u nlike Thomas , w here a defendant ’ s claim on appeal referenced the same subject matter and attacked the performance of the same attorney as in his petition (see id. ¶¶ 62- 63), in this case, only one element of defendant ’ s argument overlaps: the subject matter
. S ee Reed , 2014 IL App (1st) 122610, ¶¶ 60-63 (declining to excuse a defendant ’ s forfeiture where the defendant alleged the ineffectiveness of his appellate counsel in both his petition and on appeal related to a statement he made that was admitted at trial , “ but the respects in which [the defendant] allegedly received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel [were] distinctly different ”)
. M erely because the subject matter is similar , we cannot simply substitute defendant’ s argument on appeal that his appellate counsel was ineffective into his petition ’ s argument that his trial counsel was ineffective
. See Mars , 2012 IL App (2d) 110695, ¶ 33
. Furthermore, defendant ’ s argument on appeal clearly directs us toward actions taken by his appellate counsel before the United States Supreme Court, allegations which are entirely missing from his petition that alleged only deficiencies in trial counsel ’ s performance
. For example, on appeal, defendant argues that the three documents attached to his petition would have been judicially noticeable by the Court, or alternatively, his appellate counsel could have formally requested the Court consider the documents pursuant to United States Supreme Court Rule 32.(3). Defendant’ s petition did not include any of these procedural steps.No. 1-13-1359

- 11 - ¶ 23 Moreover, defendant ’ s petition is organized, coherent and well

- developed
. See id
. Defendant is not the “ typical pro se litigant ” who drafted “ an inartful pleading. ” Jones, 213 Ill. 2d at 504. Instead, defendant ’ s petition cited to relevant case law, detailed in depth his request for additional forensic testing, including citations to articles from the Journal of Forensic Science and the Journal of Law, Technology and Policy at the University of Illinois College of Law, and appended relevant documents to his petition as exhibits. W e do not need to “ comb through a morass of irrelevancies to try to figure out what defendant meant to raise as constitutional violations” ( Mars , 2012 IL App (2d) 11069 5, ¶ 33), because here, defendant wa s clear about the type of relief he requested. ¶ 24 Even so, we remain mindful that there is a low threshold to move beyond the first stage in a postconviction proceeding. See People v. Hodges , 234 Ill. 2d 1, 9 -10 (2009) . However, the proper inquiry on appeal is “ whether the allegations in the petition , liberally construed and taken as true, are sufficient to invoke relief under the Act. ” (Emphasis in original and internal quotation marks omitted .) People v. Cathey , 2012 IL 111746, ¶ 21 (quoting People v. Jones , 211 Ill. 2d 140, 148 (2004)). Therefore , any claims assessed by a reviewing court “must be presented in the petition filed in the circuit court. ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id
. Accordingly, because defendant ’ s claim on appeal that his appellate counsel was ineffective was not raised in his postconviction petition, he forfeited review of it on appeal. See 725 ILCS 5/122

- 3 (West 2012); Jones , 213 Ill. 2d at 505-06. ¶ 25 Nevertheless, defendant argues tha t our supreme court rejected “ identical arguments ” concerning forfeiture that the State has made in his case in Hodges , 234 Ill. 2d at 21, and People v. Brown , 236 Ill. 2d 175, 188 (2010). However , in both cases, the petition s and the defendants ’ argument s on appeal alleged the ineffectiveness of their trial counsel
. See Id. at 181 -82 ; Hodges ,No. 1-13-1359

- 12 - 234 Ill. 2d at 6 -9
. The issues in both cases concerned the sufficiency of the factual allegation s in the defendants ’ petitions to support their legal theories
. See Brown , 236 Ill. 2d at 18 8-89 ; Hodges , 234 Ill. 2d at 20 -21 . The issue before us concerns the identity of the attorney whose performance defendant assails, not the sufficiency of the factual allegations underlying his claim
. Accordingly, we believe th at defendant ’ s analogy to Hodges and Brown is inapt. ¶ 26 Despite the forfeiture, we will briefly address defendant ’ s argument on the merits. He contends that his petition set forth an arguable c laim that his United States Supreme Court counsel was ineffective for failing to cite to his petition ’ s three relevant documents , which would have persuaded Justice Thomas to conclude that admission of the DNA testimony violated defendant’s right to confrontation. Had Justice Thomas changed his vote and sided with the four dissenting justices in Williams , 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2221, the Illinois Supreme Court would have been reversed and the evidence would have been ruled inadmissible. ¶ 27 The Act (725 ILCS 5/122 -1 et seq . (West 2012 )), allows review of a defendant ’ s claim where there was a “ substantial denial of his *** rights ” under either, or both, the Illinois Constitution or United States Constitution in the proceedings that resulted in his conviction. 725 ILCS 5/122

- 1(a)(1) (West 2012). In the first stage und er the Act, the circuit court must determine whether the defendant ’ s petition is “ frivol ous” or “ patently without merit. ” 725 ILCS 5/122- 2.1(a)(2) (West 2012). If a defendant ’ s petition is “ frivol ous” or “ patently without merit, ” the court will dismiss the petition
. Id. ¶ 28 A petition is considered “frivolous” or “ patently without merit ” when it has “ no arguable basis either in law or in fact. ” Hodges , 234 Ill. 2d at 16
. A petition will have “ no arguable basis either in law or in fact ” when it “ is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or a fanciful factual allegation .” Id
. Where the record contradicts a defendant ’ s legal theory, his theory isNo. 1-13-1359

- 13 - meritless
. Id
. “ Fanciful factual allegations include those which are fantastic or delusional. ” Id
. at 17
. Because whether the circuit court properly dismissed a defendant ’ s petition in the first stage of the Act is purely a question of law, we review first

- stage dismissal s de novo
. People v. Allen , 2015 IL 113135, ¶ 19. ¶ 29 A defendant has a right to ef fective assistance of appellate counsel
. People v. Easley , 192 Ill. 2d 307, 328 (2000). A postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel may not be summarily dismissed if: (1) “ it is arguable that counsel ’ s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness ” and (2) “ it is arguable that the defendant was prejudiced. ” Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d at 17. ¶ 30 Even if defendant had preserved this argument , it is nonetheless meritless because he cannot show it is arguable that his appellat e counsel ’ s performan ce was objectively unreasonable
. First , defendant’ s appellate counsel brought his case all the way to t he Unite d States Supreme Court and managed to convince four of the nine justices that a constitutional violation occurred. Additio nally , defendant’ s appellate counsel made the same subs tantive argument that defendant ’ s petition alleges that his appellate counsel should have made, simply without specifically citing the three documents he requested . In defendant ’ s reply brief before the United States Supreme Court, his appellate counsel appe aled directly to Justice Thomas ’s idiosyncratic defini tion of testimonial statements and argued :

“ [Cellmark ’ s] report was a ‘ formal statement [made] to government officers ’ ‘ for the purpose of esta blishing or proving some fact, ’ the report was more like a response to a MarianNo. 1-13-1359

- 14 - investigation [ 2 ] than an informal comment made to police officers, and therefore, was a sufficiently ‘ solemn declaration ’ to rank as testimonial. ” Reply Brief for Petitioner a t 21, Williams v. Illinois , 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) (No. 10-8505) (citing cases). ¶ 31 D efendant ’ s appellate counsel devoted an entire section of the reply brief to Justice Thomas’s definition of testimonial statements, including citations to Justice Thomas ’s various dissents and concurrences on the issue, clearly responding to the State ’ s dispositive argument concerning the formality, or lack thereof, of the Cellmark Report
. See id. at 18-21
. Defendant ’ s petition simply contends that his appellate counsel could have argued better by referencing the documents attached to his petition . However, defendant is not entitled to “ perfect [] representation. ” See Easley , 192 Ill. 2d at 344 (stating “ ineffective assistance of counsel refers to competent, not perfect, representation ”)
. T he record is clear that defendant’s appellate counsel made the substantive arguments discussed in defendant ’ s petition
. Therefore , the record rebuts any potential claim of in effective assistance of appellate counsel, and the claim has no arguable basis in law
. See Hodges , 234 Ill. 2d at 16
. Accordingly, the re is no arguable claim that appellate counsel ’ s performance was objectively unreasonable
. See id. at 17. ¶ 32 Even if we could construe the petition as raising a claim regarding appellate counsel, it would still fail. It is wholly speculative that Justice Thomas would have changed his conclusi on if defendant ’ s appellate counsel had argued slightly differently or better, which cannot suppo rt a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
. See People v. Bew , 228 Ill. 2d 122, 135 (2008) (stating a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel “ requires actual prejudice be shown, not

2 For a discussion concerning “ Marian ” investigation s and their relevance to the right of confrontation, see Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 43-53 (2004).No. 1-13-1359

- 15 - mere speculation as to prejudice ”)
. T he claim is rooted in the notion that Justice Thomas was unsure of the law, did not know how to follow it and that better appellate representation would have guided him. I t is simply fanciful to argue that a justice of the United States Supreme Court would have changed his conclusion based on a speculatively better argument by defendant ’ s appellate counsel when the substance of the argument was , in fact, made to Justice Thomas by that counsel
. See Repl y Brief for Petitioner at 18 -21, Williams v. Illinois , 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) (No. 10-8505). ¶ 33 Additionally, it is more than a stretch to think that Justice Thomas would have simply overlooked references in the amici briefs to the same documents and arguments defendant wishes his appellate counsel would have advanced
. For example, an amicus brief cited the FBI Standards and included them as an appendix to the brief. See Brief for New York County District Attorney ’ s Office and the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent at 4 -5, Williams v. Illinois , 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) (No. 10 -8505) ; Appendix to Brief for New York County District Attorney ’ s Office and the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent, Williams v. Illinois , 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) (No. 10 -8505). Another amicus brief made continuous reference to Cellmark ’s accredit ation by ASCLD/LAB and the quality assurance standards of ASCLD/LAB
. See Brief for Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner at 21 -25, Williams v. Illinois , 5 67 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) (No. 10-8505). Still, another amicus brief argued that the Court’s previous jurisprudence “ make [s] clear ” that analysts ’ report s and conclusions produce more than just “ raw data, ” but rather

“ certify that the analyst [s] followed certain procedures, performed certain acts, and interpretedNo. 1-13-1359

- 16 - the results to arrive at the offered conclusions. ” Brief for the Innocence Network as Amic us Curiae Supporting Petitioner at 3, Williams v. Illinois , 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) (No. 10-8505). ¶ 34 Moreover, it is clear the justices in Williams argued internally over whether the Cellmark report was sufficiently formal
. For example, t he dissent criticized Justice Thomas for finding the report in sufficiently formal because although the report was not specifically labeled a “ ‘certificate,’ ” the report bore “ similarities in form, function, and purpose” to reports he found sufficiently formal in Melendez

- Diaz and Bullcoming
. Id. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 2276 (Kagan, J., dissenting, joined by Scalia, Ginsburg , and Sotomayor, JJ.). R esponding to the dissent , Justice Thomas remarked that “ Cellmark ’ s report, in substance, certifies nothing ” and “ is marked by no such indicia of solemnity.” Id. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 2260- 61 (Thomas, J., concurring). Justice Thomas even acknowledged reviewing the Cellmark report, not ed it was signed by two “ ‘reviewers,’ ” but found the reviewers never “purport[ed] to have performed the DNA testing
nor certif[ied] the accuracy of those who did.” Id. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 2260. Therefore, we cannot possibly conclude that Justice Thomas would not uncover the fundamental piece s of evidence bearing on his definition of testimonial statements
. Accordingly, forfeiture aside, the petition ’ s allegations fail to set forth an arguable basis in fact that defendant was prejudiced by his allegedly objectively unreasonable performance by appellate counsel
. See Hodges , 234 Ill. 2d at 16-17. ¶ 35 W e affirm the order of the circuit court of Cook County dismissing defenda nt’ s postconviction petition. ¶ 36 Affirmed.