People v. Tate, 2012 IL 112214

Tate was convicted of first degree murder and aggravated discharge of a firearm in 2005 after a four-eye-witness trial.
He filed a postconviction petition through privately retained counsel alleging ineffective assistance for failing to call four witnesses, including two alibi witnesses.
Attached affidavits supported the alibi and identified two occurrence witnesses and one other witness.
The circuit court summarily dismissed the petition at the first stage; the appellate court affirmed.
This Court reverses the appellate court and remands for further proceedings, holding the first-stage standard is the “arguable” Strickland test and that Tate’s affidavits meet it.
The decision leaves open whether the affidavits will sustain a substantial showing of a constitutional violation at the second stage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether first-stage dismissal was proper	Tate’s petition is arguable; should advance to second stage	State contends no arguable basis due to standard at first stage	Petition should not have been summarily dismissed; arguable basis exists
Whether ineffective-assistance claims are forfeited	Claims based on what counsel ought to have done survive default	Forfeiture applies if claims rely on record	Forfeiture does not bar these claims at first stage
What standard applies at first stage for ineffective assistance	Arguable Strickland standard should apply	State would apply higher second-stage standard	Arguable Strickland standard governs first stage
Whether the affidavits show arguable prejudice and deficiency	Affidavits show potential for alibi and exculpatory testimony	State may argue prejudice depends on second-stage evidence	Affidavits meet the arguable standard for first stage
Whether the affidavits warrant advancement to second stage	Petition should advance given potential constitutional violations	Second-stage showing required	Affidavits are sufficient to advance to second stage on remand

People v. Edwards, 197 Ill. 2d 239 (2001) (requires substantial showing at second stage; sets framework for postconviction)
People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1 (2009) (establishes three-stage process and first-stage lenient standard; ‘arguable’ test)
People v. Peeples, 205 Ill. 2d 480 (2002) (forfeiture and postconviction framework)
Rivera v. Illinois, 198 Ill. 2d 364 (2001) (first-stage screening; administrative capacity of circuit court)
People v. Erickson, 161 Ill. 2d 82 (1994) (alternative to procedural default for ineffective assistance claims)
Coleman v. Illinois, 183 Ill. 2d 366 (1998) (origin of postconviction stages and standards)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice for ineffective assistance)
People v. West, 187 Ill. 2d 418 (1999) (default rule and scope of postconviction claims)