People v. Bailey

This case presents question as to whether State is allowed to provide input on trial court’s decision as to whether to grant pro se petitioner’s motion seeking leave to file successive post-conviction petition. Here, petitioner filed his motion seeking leave to file successive post-conviction petition, and State subsequently filed written objection and argued against said motion at hearing, which was not attended by petitioner. Appellate Court, in affirming trial court’s denial of motion seeking leave to file successive petition, found that there was nothing in Post Conviction Hearing Act (Act) that would prohibit State from responding to petitioner’s motion. In his petition for leave to appeal, petitioner argued that State’s involvement at leave-to-file stage of case was contrary to legislative intent of Act.