delivered the opinion of the court:
Fоllowing a jury trial in the circuit court of McHenry County, defendant, Kurt W. Cleveland, was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (720 ILCS 570/ 401(a)(2)(A) (West 1998)) and was sentencеd to 18 years’ imprisonment. We affirmed the conviction. People v. Cleveland, No. 2 — 99— 0719 (2001) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). Defendant then filed a pro se petition for relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122 — 1 et seq. (West 2000)), alleging, inter alia, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because his attorney instructed him to testify falsely. The triаl court summarily dismissed the petition (see 725 ILCS 5/122 — 2.1(a)(2) (West 2000)), and defendant appeals. We affirm.
Defendant was arrested on the morning of December 23, 1998, after police executed a warrant to search for controlled substances at the home of Rebecca Colborn in Algonquin. The police entered the home by force and found defendant in bed with Colborn. An offiсer asked defendant where the drugs were. Defendant pointed to a pillowcase, which was found to contain cocaine and two bundles of cash totaling close to $700. The police also found an electronic scale, some spoons, and a mirror. In addition, some checks and other papers belonging to defendant were discovered during thе search, as were Christmas presents from “Wolf’ (defendant’s nickname) to Colborn’s children.
A police informant testified that two days earlier he had purchased cocaine from Cоlborn. The transaction took place in Colborn’s bedroom and defendant was present at the time. Asked if he had previously seen defendant at Colborn’s home, the informant respоnded, “No, not really.”
Defendant testified that he was a friend of Colborn and she had hired him to help remodel her house. On the night before he was arrested, defendant stayed with Colborn in her bedrоom, drinking and using cocaine that belonged to Colborn. Defendant testified that he was addicted to cocaine. According to defendant, when the police entered Colborn’s home, she took drugs that were sitting on a table in the bedroom and placed them in a pillowcase. Defendant pointed at the pillowcase when the police asked him wherе the drugs were. On cross-examination, defendant testified that Colborn provided him with cocaine in exchange for companionship. On redirect examination, defendant explainеd that “companionship” meant sex.
In his pro se postconviction petition, defendant alleged, inter alia, that his attorney had told him to falsely testify that Colborn had given him cocаine in exchange for sex. According to defendant, his attorney expressed the view that Colborn was ugly. Defendant’s attorney allegedly told him that “once the jury sees [Colborn], they will know you could have done a lot [sic] better, and you were there for the drugs and sex only.” The trial court summarily dismissed this and other ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims on the basis that the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel was “previously dealt with by the Appellate Court.” This appeal followed.
Postconviction proceedings are designed to рermit inquiry into constitutional issues involved in the original conviction and sentence that were not, nor could they have been, adjudicated previously on direct appeal. People v. Lucas,
Here, the trial court’s written order indicates that it dismissed the claim at issue — that counsel instructеd defendant to testify falsely — on res judicata grounds. In his direct appeal, defendant argued that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to move for substitution of judges, fаiled to interview Colborn, and failed to object to certain prosecutorial comments. We agree with defendant that the postconviction claim presently under consideration is sufficiently different from the issues raised on direct appeal that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply.
The State argues, however, that dismissal was propеr because the claim is waived. The facts underlying defendant’s claim — that his attorney instructed him to give false testimony — were not part of the record in defendant’s direct appeаl. The waiver rule does not apply to claims that depend on evidence outside the record. People v. Wright,
As noted, summary dismissal is proper when the trial court determines that a postconviction petitiоn is frivolous or patently without merit. To avoid dismissal at this stage, the petition must state the gist of a meritorious claim. Stivers,
In our view, Little and Stivers represent the better reаsoned approach. It is a long-standing principle that “it is not the trial court’s reasoning which is the subject of this court’s review, but, rather, its judgment” (People v. Norks,
Defendant contends that his petition stаted the gist of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Under the two-prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington,
Defendant argues that counsel’s alleged strategy based on the use of false testimony was necessarily unreasonable. Defendant maintains that he suffered prejudice because his embellished testimony undermined his credibility in the jurors’ eyes. He contends that the State’s evidence was not particularly compelling and that, but for his false testimony, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted him. We сonclude that the claim is patently without merit as a matter of law. All defendants must be presumed to know that if they choose to testify they must testify truthfully. Defendants are not entitled to rely on a lawyer’s advice to testify falsely, and if they do so, there is no sound reason to treat them any differently from defendants who testify falsely entirely on their own initiative. If the allegations of defendаnt’s postconviction petition are true, his complicity with his attorney in presenting false testimony forecloses a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. People v. Martin,
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of McHenry County is affirmed.
Affirmed.