-8-
specifically cited to section 22–105(b) “defining frivolous pleading as
one which ‘lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact’ ” and to
Supreme Court Rule 137 (Ill. S. Ct. R. 137 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994))
providing for sanctions aimed at deterring frivolous suits or pleadings
“ ‘without any basis in law.’ ”
Based on our case law defining “frivolous or *** patently without
merit” as “having no basis in law or fact and obviously without legal
significance,” we determine that the definition of “frivolous or ***
patently without merit” under section 122–2.1 of the Post-Conviction
Hearing Act is included in the statutory definition of a “frivolous”
lawsuit in section 22–105(b). Thus, a postconviction petition
summarily dismissed as frivolous or patently without merit under
section 122–2.1 of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act is subject to
imposition of fees and costs under section 22–105(b) of the Code.
Alcozer argues that his postconviction petition was summarily
dismissed based on the procedural defects of forfeiture and res
judicata and that procedural defects cannot be deemed frivolous or
patently without merit. We reject this argument. In Blair, this court
specifically ruled that postconviction petitions dismissed on principles
of forfeiture or res judicata are, necessarily, both frivolous and
patently without merit. Blair, 215 Ill. 2d at 445. Blair explained:
“[T]he legislature intended that the phrase ‘frivolous or ***
patently without merit’ encompasses res judicata and
forfeiture. Determinations of res judicata and forfeiture are
inherently legal determinations which may bar relief under the
Act. Thus, an otherwise meritorious claim has no basis in law
if res judicata or forfeiture bar the claim. The legal component
is therefore consistent with ‘frivolous’ defined as ‘of little
weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact.’
(Emphasis added.) Webster’s Third New International
Dictionary 913 (1993); Black’s Law Dictionary 677 (7th ed.
1999); accord Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 18 L.
Ed. 2d 493, 498, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967) (legal points
‘arguable on their merits’ are not frivolous). It is also
consistent with a clear, obvious, or plain lack of ‘merit,’
meaning without ‘legal significance, standing, or importance.’
(Emphasis added.) Webster’s Third New International
