People v. Ligon, 239 Ill. 2d 94

Dennis Ligon was convicted of aggravated vehicular hijacking and sentenced to natural life as a habitual offender; conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct review.
Appellate court declined to adjudicate two ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal because the record was dehors the record and more appropriately addressed in postconviction relief.
Ligon filed a pro se postconviction petition; circuit court summarily dismissed it as frivolous and patently without merit; appellate court affirmed.
Ligon argued Halbert v. Michigan and related U.S. Supreme Court precedent required appointment of counsel at the summary dismissal stage for indigent postconviction petitioners when direct review did not adjudicate certain IAC claims.
Illinois courts held there is no federal constitutional right to counsel at summary dismissal in non-death-penalty postconviction proceedings, and reviewed under de novo standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Halbert require counsel at summary dismissal in this postconviction context?	Ligon argues Halbert extends counsel at summary dismissal.	State argues Halbert does not apply; no right to counsel at summary stage.	No right to counsel at summary dismissal.
Was deferral of adjudicating IAC claims on direct appeal proper here?	Ligon I/Favor treated IAC claims as dehors the record for postconviction.	State contends deferral aligns with established Illinois practice and avoids improper direct-review adjudication.	Deferral proper; res judicata bars reevaluation on direct appeal.
Is there a federal due process/equal protection requirement to appoint counsel in this collateral review?	Halbert compelled appointment of counsel for indigent petitioners facing first-tier-like review.	No due process or equal protection violation; collateral review is further removed from trial and not a first-tier direct review.	No due process or equal protection right to appointed counsel in this postconviction context.
Should Martinez/Halbert lineage control Illinois postconviction practice here?	Argues extends Halbert-like protections to collateral review.	Contends Martinez/Halbert do not override Finley/Ross/Rospective framework in Illinois.	Martinez/Halbert lineage does not require counsel here; Illinois may proceed without appointment of counsel.

Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1963) (counsel required for indigent on first-tier appeal; early ex parte review improper)
Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1974) (no right to counsel for all postconviction or discretionary review stages)
Finley v. Delaware? Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1987) (no right to counsel for collateral review; collateral review is civil and limited)
Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2005) (right to counsel on first-tier, plea-based discretionary direct appeal analyzed)
Bew v. People, 228 Ill.2d 122 (Ill. 2008) (postconviction claims dehors record may proceed under postconviction act)
People v. Jones, 213 Ill.2d 498 (Ill. 2004) (procedural default and waiver principles in postconviction context)