People v. Hills, 2023 IL App (4th) 220141-U

Defendant Jason L. Hills was convicted of two counts of criminal sexual assault based on victim J.A.W.’s testimony, physical injuries, and DNA evidence; jury found him guilty and he received consecutive 5‑year terms.
The State presented Malinda Vogel, a counselor, who testified (based on two one‑hour interviews and no standardized tests) that J.A.W. suffered from PTSD as a result of the assault.
Defendant testified the sexual activity was consensual and that both had consumed alcohol; trial counsel did not retain a forensic psychologist or otherwise investigate Vogel’s PTSD opinion at trial.
On direct appeal Hills argued sufficiency and a jury‑instruction issue; this court affirmed the convictions.
Postconviction counsel filed a petition alleging five instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, including failure to consult/retain a forensic psychologist to challenge Vogel’s PTSD diagnosis; the petition attached a forensic psychologist’s opinion letter identifying methodological deficiencies in Vogel’s evaluation and a tramadol information printout.
The trial court summarily dismissed the petition as forfeited (should have been raised on direct appeal); the appellate court reversed and remanded, finding one claim (failure to consult a forensic psychologist) stated the gist of an ineffective‑assistance claim and was based on facts outside the trial record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hills’ ineffective‑assistance claims were forfeited because they could have been raised on direct appeal	People: claims were record‑based and should have been raised on direct appeal	Hills: claim that counsel failed to investigate Vogel depended on posttrial evidence (forensic psychologist’s opinion) not in record, so collateral review is proper	Court: claim re failure to consult a forensic psychologist was not forfeited because it relied on facts outside the trial record; petition survives first stage
Whether the petition pleaded the gist of an ineffective‑assistance claim (performance and prejudice) for failure to consult/retain a forensic psychologist	People: dismissal appropriate because claim could have been raised earlier and is speculative	Hills: alleged specific deficiencies in Vogel’s methods and attached expert letter showing arguable deficiency and prejudice given close, credibility‑dependent case	Court: allegations plus expert letter met the low threshold; counsel’s alleged omission arguably unreasonable and arguably prejudicial
Whether partial summary dismissal of the petition was permissible	People: (implicit) dismiss all if some claims forfeited	Hills: requested that surviving claims proceed	Court: partial dismissal not permitted; because one claim survived, entire petition must proceed to second stage

People v. Allen, 2015 IL 113135 (describes three‑stage postconviction procedure)
People v. Brown, 236 Ill. 2d 175 (2010) (first‑stage standard: petition must state gist of constitutional claim)
People v. Domagala, 2013 IL 113688 (explains second/third stage thresholds and analysis)
People v. Veach, 2017 IL 120649 (issues dependent on facts outside the record belong in collateral review)
People v. Harris, 224 Ill. 2d 115 (2007) (procedural default/forfeiture principles for postconviction petitions)
People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1 (2009) (petition may be dismissed only if frivolous or patently without merit)
People v. Rivera, 198 Ill. 2d 364 (2001) (partial summary dismissals not permitted)
People v. Johnson, 377 Ill. App. 3d 854 (2007) (if any claims survive first stage, petition proceeds in full)