Whether the post-conviction court erred in denying the petitioner's post-conviction petition after an evidentiary hearing, where the newly discovered evidence of the witness's testimony demonstrated the petitioner's actual innocence

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. The Post-Lowviction Court Mawifestly Erred By Denying Hulow Versers Posh-Lonviction Pedition ASter Aw Evidentiary Hearing, Where fl, Lamphell's Testimony Was Newly Discovery Evdewce Df Verser's Actual Inwocence. The Court Rubia Lowsists Bf Frreveous Factual Findings. TE. Whether This Lourt Shosld Drder A Remand For Further Proceedings Whese Pos}-Cowvictiow Louwsel Rendered Unreasonable Assistance Iw Failing To Litigate Versers Llsin At She Qexewd Stage In Fresenting Versers Motiv To Suppress Evidewee Rased pow Au Uvlawlu) Arrest: Trial Lout's Misapplication OF State Pules Aud Laws. Lowsidesing Faclrs Alteuuated Tacha The Frosevee Dr Absence DG Miranda Warwing. a. TABLE DF CONTENTS AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED PAGE(S) Nature of the Case / Proceeding Relow css cee eee eee tere e | Quesdion(s) Presewted Fer Review... 2 2 5 2 et 2 Compelling Reason Far Lrawting Review / Questions Presewted, 22 Se" Conclusion / CartkNeate of Lompliance 2-2 4 es = oc ee DBT STATUTES AND RULES INVOLVED L, Paople v Robinson 2026 IL 123849... 0.6 222 ee tt People v. Colemaw. 2013 TL M3307... 6 nee etm ul Feople v. Mostad. toi In 2d 128, 136 (sq). ee eee U . People v. Morgan. 2)Z I 2d 148, 155. B17 NE. 24 S24, 288 TN. Dee. 66 Good) ee People v. Salem, 2018 Th W8S93 ~~ 2-2 2 es 12. D. Brow v. Iivois. 472 Us. $40 (IB). 4 Terry v. Die, 392 WS. 4 (188). 2 ee 14 Pasple v. Jackson. 374 IV. App 3d 93. 102 (ist Disk. 2007)... \4 Peosle v. Simmows, 372 It. App. 34 735. 742 (ts) Dist 200d). i4 People v. Foskey. 136 TH. 2d s6 (9990) -.2-2 2 2 +s os 5 i > — 3 2 mea NM Pe g g x € S&S SB ue Ean on 7 x x 5 et fe e KY F « a »> a = : 2 < os > : . = < vi PrP ©£© ££ ~~ s — z, ~ bet e ~~ je cas -_ as ~— bed ” re x 5 2 Om 2 e 3 “ : S fe haa) =, wis 7 S 3 8 . ras as 5 ae mm : ao Z @& ln coal 5 ~ . ~ e . o wn onl 7 = . uw § = a Ce Qo ~~ . . “> . _ = o = ead > ‘ => 2 =. = g. = Q ‘ wv boty we z re ' an . us . oe. = . a : a A oS ¥ l= : : 2 = ~ a a is) . 3S N . 3 by mt = om e. ‘ aA e Lf ’ ’ ~~ 2 . ce] 5 . . , & . Nr . ‘ ‘ = ; ' a . . ' ~ ’ . e ' > ol ‘ ' e “— » Pr Pad A ; a = ~ cS = NATURE OF THE ZASE J} PROLEEDING RELOW Hulow Verser. petitioner: appellant. hereby petition this Lourt to appeal, pursuant to Aupreme f surt Rules. 10. 2 and }3 ef, From the yadqment rr the . Tikinais Supreme Court (Poop e v. Verser) No. 129033, alfiewing the denial of his post conviction petition, follwing a Yried stage evidewtiary hearig. The Tiwors Supreme Court affirmed Hulox \erser s Conviction ON Tanuary 2b, 2623. No petition tor rehearing was tiled. A copy of the Supreme Coned's judgment is appended bo this petition. [