People v. Alcozer, 241 Ill. 2d 248

Alcozer was convicted of first-degree murder after a bench trial and sentenced to 25 years plus 25 years for the firearm; direct appeal affirmed.
On April 19, 2007, Alcozer filed a pro se postconviction petition raising claims about arrest legality and ineffective assistance related to challenging the arrest.
The trial court summarily dismissed the petition on res judicata/forfeiture grounds, finding the issues frivolous and patently without merit and ordering $359 in costs and fees under section 22-105.
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal but reduced the costs/fees to $105.
The supreme court granted leave to appeal to determine the constitutionality of section 22-105 and whether the dismissal treated as frivolous under section 122-2.1 supports imposition of fees and costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether section 22-105 violates due process.	Alcozer argues it punishes indigent prisoners for exercising access to courts.	State contends the statute furthers a legitimate interest in deterring frivolous filings.	No due process violation; statute does not bar access to courts.
Whether section 22-105 violates equal protection.	Alcozer asserts burden falls only on prisoners, not nonincarcerated litigants.	State asserts rational basis related to preventing frivolous filings by prisoners.	Section 22-105 passes rational basis scrutiny; does not violate equal protection.
Whether the definition of frivolous in section 22-105 aligns with 122-2.1 and supports imposition of fees.	Argues a mismatch between 'frivolous' under 22-105 and 'frivolous or patently without merit' under 122-2.1.	22-105(b) defines frivolous consistently with case law for 122-2.1 dismissals.	Frivolous as defined in 22-105 is inclusive of 122-2.1 dismissal standards; supports fees.

Boclair v. Williams, 202 Ill.2d 89 (2002) (defined 'frivolous or patently without merit' as lacking basis in law or fact and lacking merit)
Blair v. Heintz, 215 Ill.2d 427 (2005) (applies Boclair definition to postconviction context; includes res judicata/forfeiture as frivolous)
Hodges v. Hodges, 234 Ill.2d 1 (2009) (recognizes 'frivolous' must be understood via Boclair/Anders framework)
People v. Conick, 232 Ill.2d 132 (2008) (discusses purpose of 22-105 and its relation to postconviction costs)
People v. Brown, 236 Ill.2d 175 (2010) (context for 22-105 construction in relation to frivolousness)
Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305 (1966) (equal protection critique of prisoner fee imposition distinguished by rational basis here)