On January 23, 2026, the Illinois Supreme Court (the “Court”) resolved a question of first impression regarding the survivability of certificate of innocence (“COI”) petitions. In People v. Dobbins, the Court held that a COI petition under Section 2-702 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a personal statutory remedy that does not survive the petitioner’s death and cannot be pursued by the decedent’s estate. 2026 IL 131187, at ¶ 54.

Background

On October 7, 2009, Gregory Dobbins was allegedly wrongfully convicted of a controlled substance offense tied to a pattern of misconduct by former Chicago Police Sergeant Ronald Watts (“Watts”) and his team. After serving approximately thirty (30) months in prison, Dobbins successfully vacated his conviction in April 2022 through a Section 2-1401 petition (735 ILCS 5/2-1401), which asserted his conviction relied on fabricated evidence. On May 13, 2022, he filed a COI petition under 735 ILCS 5/2-702, seeking a formal judicial declaration of innocence, a statutory prerequisite to pursuing compensation in the Illinois Court of Claims.

Dobbins’ petition was scheduled for hearing on June 22, 2022, alongside similar petitions stemming from conduct by Watts. While the State did not oppose the petition and the other petitions were granted, Dobbins did not receive a COI nor a hearing, because he passed away on June 8, 2022. His life partner, Katrina, was appointed independent administrator of his estate on January 25, 2023, and moved to substitute herself as petitioner under Section 2-1008(b) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1008(b)) to permit the COI claim to continue on behalf of Dobbins’ Estate (the “Estate”). The circuit court denied substitution and dismissed the petition, finding that the right to a COI is personal and does not survive death. The appellate court affirmed.

Statutory Requirements for a Petition for a Certificate of Innocence

Illinois established a procedure for the wrongfully convicted to obtain relief. 735 ILCS 5/2-702. The process requires the convicted individual to file a petition for COI and demonstrate they were convicted of a felony, imprisoned or served the proscribed sentence, and that the conviction was reversed or vacation or, in the case of a new trial, that they were found not guilty or that they were not retried and the indictment dismissed. 735 ILCS 5/2-702(c). The petitioner must prove their innocence. 735 ILCS 5/2-702(g). If successful, the court issues a certificate of innocence, which is transmitted to the Court of Claims. 735 ILCS 5/2-702(h).

The COI permits the petitioner to “obtain relief through a petition in the Court of Claims.” 735 ILCS 5/2-702(a). The Court of Claims has the exclusive jurisdiction over “[a]ll claims against the State for time unjustly served in prisons of this State” where the claimant received a certificate of innocence from the Circuit Court. 705 ILCS 505/8(c).

Supreme Court’s Analysis

Katrina’s appeal and argument before the Supreme Court centered on her position that the COI action survived Dobbins’ death under the Survival Act (755 ILCS 5/27-6). The Supreme Court’s decision addressed three principal arguments: (1) whether the Court should grant relief using supervisory authority; (2) whether a nunc pro tunc order or the Tunnell exception could apply; or, in the alternative, (3) whether the claim survives under the Survival Act. These questions of statutory interpretation and of law were reviewed de novo. Dobbins, 2026 IL 131187, at ¶ 24.

1. Refusal to Use Supervisory Authority to Issue a Nunc Pro Tunc Order

First, the Estate asked the Court to exercise its constitutional supervisory authority to issue a nunc pro tunc order that would pre-date Dobbins’ death. The Court declined, emphasizing that supervisory authority is used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. Because the lower courts acted within their authority and the matter had been fully litigated through the ordinary appellate process, the Court found no basis to intervene.

The Court rejected the request for a nunc pro tunc order. It reiterated that nunc pro tunc relief is limited to correcting the record to reflect judicial action taken but omitted due to clerical error, it cannot be used to supply new judicial action. Here, no COI was granted, no order was signed, and nothing in the record showed the circuit court had already decided to issue a COI. Thus, a nunc pro tunc order would improperly create, rather than memorialize, a judgment.

2. Denial of the Tunnell Exception as Basis for the Use of Supervisory Authority

Second, the Court also declined utilize its constitutional supervisory authority to apply the Tunnell exception, which sometimes allows a case to proceed after a party’s death when all factual issues are resolved, and the matter is ripe for judgment. See Tunnell v. Edwardsville Intelligencer, Inc., 43 Ill. 2d, 239, 243-44 (1969). In Tunnell, a verdict was reached and all factual issues resolved prior to the plaintiff’s death. Id.  By contrast, Dobbins died before any COI hearing or ruling. No factual findings were made and no judgment was pending. Therefore, the case was not “ripe,” and the exception did not apply.

3. Survival Act and Survivability of a COI Petition Upon Petitioner’s Death

Third, at the heart of the decision, is the Court’s statutory interpretation of the COI statute and the Survival Act.

The Survival Act allows certain actions to survive the death of a party, including actions to recover damages for personal injury. 755 ILCS 5/27-6. Here, the issue is whether a COI petition is an action to recover damages.

The Court stressed that a COI petition does not provide monetary relief. Instead, it produces a declaration of innocence and related relief, such as expungement and sealing of criminal records. Monetary compensation is available only through a separate action in the Court of Claims under the Court of Claims Act. The COI is merely a statutory prerequisite to that later claim.

Because the COI proceedings do not recover damages, it does not fall within the Survival Act. The Court concluded that the legislature designed the COI process as a personal remedy for the wrongfully convicted individual. Accordingly, the action abates upon the petitioner’s death.

Key Takeaways for Municipalities

1. COI Proceedings Are Personal and Do Not Survive Death

A petition for a COI is a personal statutory remedy that abates upon the petitioner’s death and cannot be continued by an estate or representative.

2. COI Proceedings Do Not Themselves Award Damages

A petition for a COI does not award monetary damages. A formal judicial declaration of innocence is merely a statutory prerequisite to seeking compensation from the State. Any monetary recovery for wrongful incarceration is available only through a separate claim filed in the Illinois Court of Claims. In other words, a COI is merely a necessary step on the path to compensation; not the source of compensation itself.

Authored by:

Zachery Frye (unpictured)