In People v. Shellstrom, 216 Ill. 2d 45, 52-53, 833 N.E.2d 863, 868, 295 Ill. Dec. 657 (2005), the defendant filed a pro se pleading entitled "Motion to Reduce Sentence, Alternatively, Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Order Strict Compliance with Terms of Guilty Plea," which the trial court recharacterized as a postconviction petition pursuant to the Act. Shellstrom, 216 Ill. 2d at 48-49, 833 N.E.2d at 866. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition as patently without merit. Shellstrom, 216 Ill. 2d at 49, 833 N.E.2d at 866. Because a trial court may sua sponte recharacterize a defendant's pleading as a postconviction petition, the supreme court was concerned that recharacterizing the pleading would only present the arguments the defendant included in his original pleading and that any additional arguments he might have included in a first postconviction petition would be barred from successive petitions unless the defendant could demonstrate cause for failing to bring them and prejudice resulting from the failure. Shellstrom, 216 Ill. 2d at 56, 833 N.E.2d at 870. In response to these concerns, the supreme court found that when a trial court recharacterizes a pleading as a postconviction petition, the trial court must: "(1) notify the pro se litigant that the court intends to recharacterize the pleading; (2) warn the litigant that this recharacterization means that any subsequent postconviction petition will be subject to the restrictions on successive postconviction petitions, and; (3) provide the litigant an opportunity to withdraw the pleading or to amend it so that it contains all the claims appropriate to a postconviction petition that the litigant believes he or she has." Shellstrom, 216 Ill. 2d at 57, 833 N.E.2d at 870. The supreme court examined the obstacles a defendant would face in filing successive postconviction petitions when a court sua sponte recharacterized his pro se pleading as a postconviction petition. Shellstrom, 216 Ill. 2d at 55-56, 833 N.E.2d at 869-70. To safeguard the defendant's rights, the supreme court held as follows: "When a circuit court is recharacterizing as a first postconviction petition a pleading that a pro se litigant has labeled as a different action cognizable under Illinois law, the circuit court must: (1) notify the pro se litigant that the court intends to recharacterize the pleading; (2) warn the litigant that this recharacterization means that any subsequent postconviction petition will be subject to the restrictions on successive postconviction petitions; (3) provide the litigant an opportunity to withdraw the pleading or to amend it so that it contains all the claims appropriate to a postconviction petition that the litigant believes he or she has." Shellstrom, 216 Ill. 2d at 57, 833 N.E.2d at 870.