People v. Alcozer, 2011 Ill. LEXIS 455

People v. Alcozer challenges section 22–105 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/22–105) as applied to postconviction petitions summarily dismissed as frivolous or patently without merit under 725 ILCS 5/122–2.1; court imposed fees and costs after dismissal; appellate court affirmed with reduced fees; Illinois Supreme Court granted review and upheld the statute’s constitutionality.
Alcozer was convicted of first-degree murder with an enhanced firearm-use sentence; direct appeal affirmed.
Alcozer filed a pro se postconviction petition on April 19, 2007 raising illegal arrest and ineffective assistance arguments; the trial court dismissed June 21, 2007 as frivolous and barred by res judicata.
Section 22–105, enacted in 1997, authorizes penalties for frivolous prisoner filings and defines “frivolous” by statute, and provides for collection of costs.
Court held that a postconviction petition dismissed as frivolous or patently without merit under 122–2.1 is subject to fees under 22–105 and that 22–105 is constitutional as applied to prisoners.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 22–105 violates due process and equal protection.	Alcozer argues it imposes pecuniary punishment on indigent petitioners.	State argues rational basis to deter frivolous filings and offset costs.	No due process or equal protection violation; rational basis supports fees.
Whether 22–105 accords with the definition of “frivolous” for petitions summarily dismissed under 122–2.1.	23–105(b) meaning should align with 122–2.1’s standard.	Frivolous includes lack of merit per Boclair/Blair interpretation.	22–105(b) definition of frivolous aligns with 122–2.1’s standard.
Whether 22–105 is unconstitutional as applied to first-time pro se petitioners.	Punishes initial petitions for postconviction relief.	Statute applies to both initial and successive petitions.	Constitutional; applies to both initial and successive petitions.
Whether applying 22–105 to petitions dismissed for forfeiture or res judicata is appropriate.	Dismissals on forfeiture/res judicata are not meritless.	Blair holds such dismissals are inherently frivolous or patently without merit.	Blair governs; such dismissals count as frivolous or patently without merit.

Blair v. Illinois, 215 Ill. 2d 427 (Ill. 2005) (definition of frivolous or patently without merit; res judicata/forfeiture treated as frivolous)
Boclair v. Bd. of Educ., 202 Ill. 2d 89 (Ill. 2002) (frivolous/patently without merit meaning; used to define standards)
Hodges v. People, 234 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2009) (clarified lack of express definition; uses Boclair framework)
Conick v. People, 232 Ill. 2d 132 (Ill. 2008) (stated purpose of 22–105 to curb frivolous filings; applies to initial/successive petitions)
Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305 (U.S. 1966) (equal protection critique of burden on incarcerated appellants )
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (U.S. 1956) (indigency and access to courts; cannot burden access)
Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1959) (indigent petitioners entitled to access)
Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708 (U.S. 1961) (indigent defendants' appellate rights and access)