People v. Johnson, 161 N.E.3d 258

In October 2007 Recardo Johnson pleaded guilty to unlawful restraint and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment; he did not file a direct appeal or withdraw the plea.
After release he was subject to a registration requirement under the Violent Offender Act; that registration later led to a separate conviction (2014) for failure to register.
In July 2016 Johnson filed a pro se, late postconviction petition challenging his 2007 conviction, arguing the victim’s age was never stated, the court did not advise him of registration under the Violent Offender Act, and counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of registration consequences.
The circuit court summarily dismissed the petition at the first stage, concluding Johnson lacked standing because he had completed the sentence and MSR for the 2007 conviction and was imprisoned for a different, later offense.
Johnson appealed, arguing the court erred by considering standing at the first stage and that he nevertheless had standing to pursue postconviction relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May standing be considered at the first stage of postconviction proceedings?	State: Yes; if lack of standing is clear, the petition is necessarily frivolous.	Johnson: No; standing is addressed in a separate section and should not be considered at first stage.	Court: Yes; standing is a substantive, merits-related question (like res judicata/forfeiture) and may be decided at stage one when clear from the record.
Did Johnson have standing to challenge his 2007 conviction?	State: No; his sentence and MSR for the 2007 conviction were completed, and his current imprisonment stems from a later failure-to-register conviction, so invalidating the 2007 conviction would not advance his release.	Johnson: He asserted he was imprisoned and thus eligible to proceed under the Act and that counsel failed to advise him about registration consequences.	Court: No; Johnson lacked any arguable basis in law or fact to show imprisonment for the challenged conviction or that relief would affect his liberty, so the petition was frivolous and properly dismissed.

People v. Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d 89 (court may not dismiss postconviction petition at first stage for untimeliness)
People v. Blair, 215 Ill. 2d 427 (res judicata and forfeiture may be decided at first stage because they negate a petition’s merit)
People v. Pack, 224 Ill. 2d 144 (petitioner imprisoned on consecutive sentences has standing to attack a prior conviction that would affect aggregate confinement)
People v. West, 145 Ill. 2d 517 (petitioner must be in prison for the offense being challenged to have standing under the Act)
People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1 (petition is frivolous or patently without merit only if it has no arguable basis in law or fact)
People v. Steward, 406 Ill. App. 3d 82 (standing may be considered at first stage because lack of standing renders a petition without merit)
People v. Dent, 408 Ill. App. 3d 650 (petitioners who completed the sentence for the challenged conviction cannot use the Act merely to purge their records)