People v. Matthews, 76 N.E.3d 1233

Jerrell Matthews, convicted of first-degree murder, filed a section 2-1401 petition on March 25, 2012, alleging trial unfairness; he attached a proof/certificate of service stating the petition was mailed via the prison mail system to the Cook County clerk and State’s Attorney.
The circuit court docketed the filing and on May 24, 2012 dismissed the petition as untimely; the State did not actively participate at the dismissal hearing.
Matthews appealed arguing dismissal was premature because he had not served the State as required by Ill. S. Ct. R. 105 (certified or registered mail), so the 30-day response period never began.
The appellate court found dismissal premature because less than 30 days had passed from the State’s actual receipt of notice and vacated the dismissal; the State appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court considered (1) whether Matthews is estopped from attacking the dismissal based on his own defective service, and (2) whether Matthews has standing to challenge the court’s personal jurisdiction over the State.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Matthews)	Held
Whether dismissal was premature because petitioner failed to effect service under Rule 105	Service was proper or the State had actual notice; regardless, defendant may be estopped from raising his own service error	Dismissal was premature because Rule 105 certified/registered-mail requirement was not met and 30-day response period never began	Matthews is estopped from challenging dismissal based on his own defective service; court affirmed dismissal
Whether petitioner is estopped/invited-error bars challenge to dismissal based on his proof of service	The invited-error/estoppel doctrine prevents a litigant from complaining on appeal about a procedure he requested or caused	Matthews contends invited-error does not apply to invalidate the proceeding or final order	Court applied invited-error/estoppel: Matthews cannot now attack the order he facilitated by filing the proof of service
Whether Matthews has standing to assert lack of personal jurisdiction over the State	Only the party entitled to service can object; personal-jurisdiction objections may be waived and cannot be raised by a third party	Matthews argues dismissal is void for lack of personal jurisdiction because State was not properly served	Court held Matthews lacks standing to challenge personal jurisdiction on behalf of the State; only the State may object

People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1 (discusses waiver of objections and treatment of unresponded-to 2-1401 petitions)
People v. Laugharn, 233 Ill. 2d 318 (trial court may not sua sponte dismiss a 2-1401 petition before 30-day response period expires)
In re M.W., 232 Ill. 2d 408 (personal-jurisdiction objections can be waived; only party entitled to service may raise improper-service claim)
State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill, 113 Ill. 2d 294 (judgments entered without jurisdiction are void; discusses service and appearance principles)
People v. Villarreal, 198 Ill. 2d 209 (applies invited-error doctrine; a party cannot complain on appeal about procedures he requested)