PRESIDING JUSTICE COHEN delivered the opinion of the court:

Petitioner James Kluppelberg appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook Countygranting the State's motion to dismiss his petition for post-conviction relief without anevidentiary hearing. We reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was charged by indictment of eighteen counts of first degree murder (Ill. Rev.Stat. 1983, ch. 38, pars. 9-1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) (now codified, as amended, at 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) (West 2000)), six counts of attempt (first degree murder) (Ill. Rev. Stat.1983, ch. 38, pars. 9-1(a)(1) (now codified, as amended, at 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2000))and three counts of arson (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1984, ch. 38, pars. 20-1(a) (now codified, as amended, at720 ILCS 5/20-1(a) (West 2000)) stemming from a March 24, 1984 fire at 4448 South Hermitagethat killed a mother and her five children. Following a bench trial, petitioner was convicted ofsix counts of first degree murder and three counts of arson and sentenced to natural life in prison. This court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. People v. Kluppelberg, 257 Ill. App. 3d 516(1993).

On October 6, 1994, petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief (petition)pursuant to the Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West1991)), claiming both that he received constitutionally ineffective counsel at trial as well as in hisdirect appeal and that he was denied his constitutional right to testify and his constitutional rightto a trial by jury. In support of his claims, petitioner made a total of 25 allegations, including: (1)his trial counsel ignored his wishes to have a jury trial; (2) his trial counsel did not allow him totestify and confront his accusers; (3) his trial counsel failed to submit into evidence police reportsclassifying the fire as accidental; (4) his trial counsel failed to communicate with him concerninghis appeal; (5) his appellate counsel failed to raise certain issues with regard to his trial counsel'sineffectiveness; and (6) his appellate counsel failed to file a petition for rehearing notifying theappellate court of its failure to address certain issues he made on appeal. Petitioner did not attachan affidavit or exhibits to his petition.

On October 18, 1994, the trial court appointed post-conviction counsel to representpetitioner. On August 4, 1998, the State filed a motion to dismiss the pro se petition alleging thatthe petition failed to raise any constitutional questions within the purview of the Act, or in thealternative, that the issues raised in the petition were either waived or barred by res judicata. OnSeptember 2, 1999, an amended petition was filed by an assistant public defender alleging thattrial counsel: (1) refused to comply with petitioner's decision to have a jury trial; (2) refused toallow petitioner to testify on his own behalf; (3) failed to properly communicate with petitioner;and (4) failed to present the testimony of the Chicago bomb and arson unit investigators whodetermined that the fire was accidental. Attached to the amended petition as exhibits were theaffidavit of petitioner, part of the trial transcript concerning jury waiver and a bomb and arsonunit's "cause and origin" report dated March 25, 1984.

In his affidavit, petitioner declared that he informed his trial counsel on numerousoccasions that he wanted a jury trial and wished to testify on his own behalf, but was told by histrial counsel to "not worry" and to "keep his mouth shut." Petitioner further stated that trialcounsel threatened that if petitioner testified, trial counsel "would withdraw from [his] case andleave [petitioner] in the hands of a public defender." Petitioner also declared that he never met ortalked with his trial counsel in a private setting, only having the opportunity to discuss his casewith trial counsel in the "bull pen."

On September 23, 1999, the State filed a "Response to James Kluppelberg's SupplementalPetition for Post-Conviction Relief" which raised essentially the same objections as those setforth in its motion to dismiss. On October 6, 1999, petitioner filed a motion to set his amendedpetition for an evidentiary hearing and to strike portions of the State's "answer." A hearing wasconducted later the same day. At the hearing, the trial judge determined that the document filedby the State on September 23, 1999, was not an "answer" to petitioner's amended petition, butrather a supplement to its previously filed motion to dismiss. A hearing was then conductedsolely on the State's motion to dismiss.

The State argued that petitioner's claim that he had been denied his right to a jury trial hadbeen waived. The State also argued that petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was denied hisright to testify where the trial transcript revealed that at no point during the course of the trial didpetitioner indicate to the court his desire to testify. The State further argued that petitioner'sclaim that his trial counsel failed to properly communicate with him was basically anineffectiveness of counsel claim and referred the trial judge to the appellate court decisionfinding trial counsel effective. Finally, the State argued that petitioner's allegation ofineffectiveness for failure to elicit testimony that the fire was an accident had been waived andwas a matter of "trial tactics" not subject to judicial review in post-conviction proceedings.

Petitioner's post-conviction counsel responded by drawing the court's attention topetitioner's affidavit. Post-conviction counsel emphasized the numerous occasions on whichpetitioner informed his trial counsel of his desire to have a jury trial and his desire to testify onhis own behalf. Post-conviction counsel also emphasized the fact that petitioner's trial counselnever met with petitioner in a private setting despite the fact that petitioner was facing the deathpenalty. Post-conviction counsel further argued that a hearing conducted on a motion in liminefiled by petitioner's trial counsel demonstrated that although trial counsel knew of a police reportin which two Chicago police officers had determined that the fire was accidental, trial counselhad failed to call either police officer to testify during the trial. Post-conviction counsel,however, failed to attach a copy of this police report to the amended petition, failed to attach thetranscript of the hearing on the motion in limine to the amended petition and failed to bring acopy of the transcript with him to the hearing on the State's motion to dismiss.

The trial judge granted the State's motion to dismiss petitioner's post-conviction petition,finding: (1) the bomb and arson unit's "cause and origin" report attached as an exhibit to theamended petition did not support petitioner's assertion that the fire was accidental; (2) there wasno evidence presented in the amended petition to support the conclusion that the fire wasaccidental; (3) all issues raised in petitioner's post-conviction petition could have been raised ondirect appeal; (4) the record reflected a valid jury waiver; and (5) the appellate court decisioncorrectly determined that trial counsel was not ineffective. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, petitioner alleges that he received inadequate representation in the post-conviction proceedings in violation of Supreme Court Rule 651(c) (134 Ill. R. 651(c)). Petitioneralso alleges that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issues of his trial counsel's: (1)failure to communicate with him in a meaningful and private manner; (2) failure to presentcritical evidence that the cause of the fire was accidental; (3) failure to request a jury trial despitepetitioner's numerous requests that counsel do so; and (4) refusal to allow him to testify on hisown behalf. Petitioner further alleges that the trial court erred in determining that petitioner'sineffectiveness of trial counsel claims and his claims that he was denied his constitutional rightsto a jury and to testify on his own behalf were waived.

A. Inadequate Post-Conviction Counsel

We first address petitioner's claim that his post-conviction counsel was inadequate for:(1) failing to attach to the amended petition a police report, transcript or affidavit in support ofthe contention that the fire was accidental; and (2) failing to allege appellate counsel'sineffectiveness for failure to raise the issue of trial counsel's ineffectiveness (for a similar failureto present evidence of accident) on direct appeal.

It is well established that a defendant has no constitutional right to the assistance ofcounsel in post-conviction proceedings. People v. Davis, 156 Ill. 2d 149, 162 (1993). TheIllinois legislature "has provided by statute for the appointment of counsel to indigent defendantswho file pro se post-conviction petitions." Davis, 156 Ill. 2d at 162; 725 ILCS 5/122-4 (West2000). "Because the right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings is wholly statutory, post-conviction petitioners are entitled only the level of assistance provided by the Post-ConvictionHearing Act." People v. Turner, 187 Ill. 2d 406, 411 (1999). Our supreme court has defined thatassistance as a "reasonable level of assistance." People v. Owens, 139 Ill. 2d 351, 364 (1990).

Supreme Court Rule 651(c) outlines the specific duties of appointed counsel in post-conviction proceedings, stating:

"Record for Indigents; Appointment of Counsel. Upon the timely filing of anotice of appeal in a post-conviction proceeding, if the trial court determines thatthe petitioner is indigent, it shall order that a transcript of the record of the post-conviction proceedings, including a transcript of the evidence, if any, be preparedand filed with the clerk of the court to which the appeal is taken and shall appointcounsel on appeal, both without cost to the petitioner. The record filed in thatcourt shall contain a showing, which may be made by the certificate of petitioner'sattorney, that the attorney has consulted with petitioner either by mail or inperson to ascertain his contentions of deprivation of constitutional right, hasexamined the record of the proceedings at the trial, and has made anyamendments to the petition filed pro se that are necessary for an adequatepresentation of petitioner's contentions." (Emphasis added.) 134 Ill. R. 651(c).

1. Failure To Attach Police Report, Transcript or Affidavit to Supplemental Petition.

Petitioner argues that his post-conviction counsel did not comply with Rule 651(c)because he failed to attach to the amended petition a police report, transcript or affidavit tosupport the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce into evidence a policereport that classified the fire at 4448 South Hermitage as accidental. We agree. "Rule 651(c)plainly requires that appointed post-conviction counsel make 'any amendments to the petitionsfiled pro se that are necessary for an adequate presentation of petitioner's contentions.'" People v.Turner, 187 Ill. 2d 406, 412 (1999), quoting 134 Ill. R. 651(c); People v. Johnson, 154 Ill. 2d227, 238 (1993).

During the 1989 trial, the burden was on the State to establish that the fire that occurredon March 24, 1984 at 4448 South Hermitage was of incendiary origin (arson). To that end, theState presented the expert testimony of Officer Francis Burns of the Office of Fire Investigation,Chicago Fire Department. Officer Burns testified that on March 24, 1984,⁽¹⁾ he was conducting a"cause and origin" training class at the 4448 South Hermitage fire scene. Officer Burns testifiedthat during the class' investigation, he noticed a "heavy deep alligatoring pattern" on some of thedebris located at the center rear section of the building. Officer Burns also testified that at thesame section of the building he noticed "finger patterns." According to Officer Burns,"alligatoring" indicates a fire that generated extremely high temperatures and "finger patterns"indicate that some type of accelerant was used to start the fire. Officer Burns testified that basedon these "burn patterns" he concluded that the fire at 4448 South Hermitage was the result ofarson.

On cross-examination, Officer Burns admitted that he did not make a report documentinghis findings and conclusion that the fire at 4448 South Hermitage was arson. Officer Burns didstate, however, that the trainees prepared individual reports, but these reports were not kept as amatter of record because it was a "simple training exercise."

In petitioner's pro se petition, he alleged that his trial counsel was incompetent for notintroducing into evidence a police report determining that the fire was accidental. Five yearslater, post-conviction counsel amended the pro se petition alleging that trial counsel wasineffective for failing to impeach Officer Burns' testimony with a bomb and arson unit "causeand origin" report that classified the fire as accidental. Post-conviction counsel attached a copyof the bomb and arson unit's "cause and origin" report to the amended petition. On appeal,petitioner alleges that post-conviction counsel attached the wrong report to the amended petition.

At the hearing on the State's motion to dismiss petitioner's amended post-convictionpetition, the trial judge repeatedly asked post-conviction counsel on what evidence he wasrelying to support the allegation that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach OfficerBurns' testimony with evidence that the fire was accidental:

"THE COURT: Let me verify that I understand what you're relying on inmaking that assertion. What are you relying on in making that assertion?

[COUNSEL]: The two witnesses, the two Chicago police officers haddecided that the fire was accidental. I have given one of the reports, I subpoenaedone of the reports, however, I never received --

THE COURT: You're relying on police reports or Bomb and Arson Unitreports? From my review of all these materials it was my recollection that I had[sic] reviewed any sworn affidavits.

* * *

THE COURT: You're talking about an argument made during the courseof the trial. I'm asking you now what are you relying upon in making thisassertion that two witnesses would have testified that the fire was startedaccidentally other than what you stated?

[COUNSEL]: I'm relying on the attorney stating that on the record duringthe motion in limine and the one Chicago Police Department report that I havefiled.

* * *

THE COURT: Wait a minute, [counsel], there is not one shred of evidencethat anything was provided to this Court this fire was closed as accidental. Whatare you talking about?

[COUNSEL]: The Court has the transcript of the entire trial, that is a partof the record. If you wish I will bring it in.

THE COURT: What specifically are you talking about?

[COUNSEL]: I'm talking about the motion in limine which the attorneyargued --

THE COURT: The attorney argued about the police report which you havealready stated.

* * *

THE COURT: Do you have the trial transcript with you?

[COUNSEL]: I don't have it, I can bring a copy of it, Judge."

After both parties presented argument, the trial judge granted the State's motion to dismiss based,in part, on the fact that petitioner's assertion that the fire was accidental and not arson was notsupported by the bomb and arson report attached as an exhibit to the amended petition.

The bomb and arson unit's "cause and origin" report (dated March 25, 1984) that wasattached to the amended petition does not conclude that the fire was accidental, stating only that"because of the complete burning and collapse of the building, this detective was unable toconduct Cause & Origin examination as of [sic] this report." A different police report alsocontained in the record, however, does conclude that the fire was accidental. This report (datedApril 14, 1984) was attached to a motion in limine filed by trial counsel and discussed in detail atthe hearing on the motion in limine. The report classifies the status of the case as "clsd. non-criminal" and states that "samples of the debris that were taken from the scene were returnedfrom the lab [and] showed negative for any accelerant." The report concluded that the case be"classified as clsoed [sic], apparent accidental fire deaths."

The report classifying the fire as accidental is located in volume one of the common lawrecord on pages 57-59. While Rule 651(c) does not require that appointed post-convictioncounsel "examine the entirety of a petitioner's trial proceedings," it does required that appointedpost-conviction counsel "examine as much of the transcript of proceedings as is necessary toadequately present and support those constitutional claims raised by the petitioner." People v.Davis, 156 Ill. 2d 149, 164 (1993). Here, when asked by the trial judge what post-convictioncounsel was relying on to support petitioner's claim that the fire was accidental, post-convictioncounsel persistently referred to trial counsel's argument during the hearing on the motion inlimine. It is obvious from this dialogue that post-conviction counsel was totally unaware that thepossibly exculpatory police report itself was in the record. This is clearly inadequaterepresentation under the requirements of Rule 651(c).

Further, adding yet two more additional bricks to this ever growing pyramid ofincompetence although post-conviction counsel repeatedly referred to trial counsel's argumentduring the hearing on the motion in limine as support for petitioner's claim that the fire wasaccidental, counsel failed to attach the transcript of that hearing to the amended petition. Andeven more egregious is the fact that post-conviction counsel failed to bring a copy of thetranscript with him to the hearing on the State's motion to dismiss.

The State asserts that the underlying claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel lacks anymerit because the testimony presented at the motion in limine hearing clearly establishes that thepolice report would not have impeached Officer Burns' testimony and therefore post-convictioncounsel's failure to amend the petition to include a copy of the police report, transcript oraffidavits did not prejudice petitioner. We reject this argument. We will not "speculate whetherthe trial court would have dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing if counsel hadadequately performed his duties under Rule 651(c)." People v. Turner, 187 Ill. 2d 406, 416(1999) (citing People v. Johnson, 154 Ill. 2d 227, 246 (1993)). This is especially true as the trialjudge explicitly stated that she rejected petitioner's argument that the fire was the result of anaccident because "there [was] not one shred of credible evidence set forth in the [amended]petition to support that conclusion."

2. Failure To Allege Ineffectiveness of Appellate Counsel

Petitioner also claims that post-conviction counsel was inadequate for failing to allegeappellate counsel's ineffectiveness (for failure to raise the issue of trial counsel's ineffectivenessfor failure to introduce the police report into evidence, to impeach Officer Burns' testimony withthe police report and to call the police officers who drafted the report to testify during the trial).

In his pro se post-conviction petition, petitioner alleged that his appellate counsel wasineffective for failing to raise the issue of trial counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to introduceinto evidence the police report that classified the fire as accidental. In the amended petition,however, it was only alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue. There was no mention of appellate counsel's ineffectiveness for not raising the issue of trialcounsel's ineffectiveness with respect to the police report. Therefore, the trial judge held that theissue of trial counsel's ineffectiveness was waived.

The trial judge was correct in holding that post-conviction counsel's failure to allege thatappellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue of trial counsel's ineffectiveness withrespect to the police report waived the issue of trial counsel's ineffectiveness with respect to thepolice report. However, there is an exception to the waiver doctrine in post-convictionproceedings. Petitioner correctly asserts that if post-conviction counsel had in fact alleged thatappellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue of trial counsel's ineffectiveness withregard to the police report, the trial judge could not have dismissed the argument on the basis ofwaiver. People v. Turner, 187 Ill. 2d 406, 413 (1999); People v. Flores, 153 Ill. 2d 264, 277(1992). Our supreme court has held that a failure of post-conviction counsel to "make a routineamendment to [a] post-conviction petition which would overcome the procedural bar of waiver"constitutes unreasonable assistance in violation of Rule 651(c). Turner, 187 Ill. 2d at 412-413. Therefore, our analysis leads us to find that post-conviction counsel's failure to assert appellatecounsel's ineffectiveness, especially where it was properly alleged in the pro se petition, waspatently unreasonable.

CONCLUSION

Post-conviction counsel's failure to attach to the amended petition a police report,transcript or affidavit supporting the conclusion that the fire was accidental, coupled with hisfailure to allege appellate counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to raise the issue of trial counsel'sineffectiveness with respect to this issue on direct appeal, "fell below the level of assistancerequired by Rule 651(c)." Turner, 187 Ill. 2d at 414. Because this issue is dispositive, we neednot address the remaining arguments on appeal.

Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County dismissing petitioner'samended post-conviction petition without an evidentiary hearing is reversed. This cause isremanded to the circuit court with directions that new post-conviction counsel be appointed andthat petitioner be allowed to replead his post-conviction petition.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

TULLY and COUSINS, JJ., concur.

1. Although the record states that Officer Burns conducted his class at the scene of the fireon March 24, 1989, it is apparent from the context of Officer Burns' direct testimony and cross-examination testimony that he in fact conducted his class at the scene of the fire on March 24,1984, the date of the fire at 4448 South Hermitage.