People v. Addison, 217 N.E.3d 1011

Addison was indicted for offenses arising from using counterfeit money to buy a motorcycle; he failed to appear and was tried in absentia, convicted, and sentenced.
Appellate counsel communicated there were no meritorious issues on appeal and filed an agreed motion securing 2 days’ sentencing credit; no merits brief was filed.
Addison filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging numerous issues, including that appellate counsel failed to raise many of them on direct appeal; counsel was appointed and later filed an amended petition raising five trial-counsel claims but omitted substantive ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel allegations.
Postconviction counsel filed a Rule 651(c) certificate asserting she consulted Addison, examined the record, and amended the pro se petition as necessary; the State moved to dismiss based on forfeiture and the absence of appellate-counsel claims.
The trial court dismissed the petition; the appellate court reversed and remanded, holding postconviction counsel rendered unreasonable assistance by failing to plead ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and remand was required under Rule 651(c) without reaching the merits.
The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed: counsel’s omission rebutted the Rule 651(c) certificate presumption of reasonable assistance and mandated remand for compliance with Rule 651(c) regardless of the petition’s merits.

Issue	People’s Argument	Addison’s Argument	Held
Whether postconviction counsel rendered unreasonable assistance by failing to frame claims as ineffective assistance of appellate counsel	Rule 651(c) certificate creates a presumption of reasonable assistance; counsel not required to pursue meritless claims	Counsel eliminated pro se allegations and failed to amend to overcome procedural forfeiture; omission was unreasonable	Counsel’s performance was unreasonable; the certificate’s presumption was rebutted because counsel failed to shape claims into proper form
Whether remand is required (and merits may be considered) or whether petitioner must show prejudice when a Rule 651(c) certificate was filed	Where a certificate exists, remand should require a showing of prejudice; Suarez limited or distinguishable	Once presumption is rebutted, Suarez requires remand for Rule 651(c) compliance regardless of merits or prejudice	Remand is required for Rule 651(c) compliance without reaching merits or requiring a separate prejudice showing once the presumption is rebutted

People v. Turner, 187 Ill. 2d 406 (holding failure to amend a petition to allege ineffective assistance of appellate counsel to avoid forfeiture can be patently unreasonable)
People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37 (remand required when Rule 651(c) duties not shown; noncompliance not excused as harmless error)
People v. Custer, 2019 IL 123339 (discussing Rule 651(c) certificate creating rebuttable presumption of reasonable assistance)
People v. Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d 34 (explaining Rule 651(c) requires amendments to overcome procedural bars)
People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192 (amendments that would merely advance frivolous claims are not ‘necessary’ under Rule 651(c))
People v. English, 2013 IL 112890 (analyzing ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims on Strickland merits on third-stage review)
People v. Johnson, 154 Ill. 2d 227 (Rule 651(c) duties include shaping pro se claims into appropriate legal form)
People v. Brown, 52 Ill. 2d 227 (remand required where record did not show postconviction counsel examined trial record)