People v. Baez, 241 Ill. 2d 44

Baez pled guilty to the murders of Juan Estrada and Janet Mena; the Cook County circuit court sentenced him to death after aggravation/mitigation weighing.
This Court remanded on Oct. 18, 2005 to allow a late motion to withdraw the guilty plea; an evidentiary hearing followed, and the circuit court denied the motion.
Baez’s case was tried as a capital case with two murder counts and later proceeded to a sentencing phase in 2003–2004.
During pretrial and early proceedings, Baez repeatedly changed counsel and sought permission to represent himself, prompting judicial discussions about appointment of private counsel and public defender custody.
Granich, Baez’s private defense attorney, was removed from the case in May 2001 due to plans to be away; Baez then proceeded with public defenders for the remainder of the proceedings.
Baez challenged the Granich removal, the guilty plea withdrawal, and various sentencing issues on remand and on direct appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to counsel: removal of Granich violated sixth amendment right to counsel of choice	Baez asserts removal violated his right to counsel of choice	People contends removal was within court discretion for calendar efficiency	Court did not abuse discretion; removal authorized under circumstances; right not violated
Motion to withdraw guilty plea: whether denial was proper	Baez sought withdrawal due to alleged coercion by counsel removal	State argues no manifest injustice; plea knowingly entered	Court did not abuse discretion; plea knowingly entered and rather voluntary
Right to represent oneself: whether Baez was properly allowed to proceed pro se	Baez maintained right to self-representation	Court acted within discretion to require counsel	Court did not err; Baez implicitly waived pro se after discussion and counsel engagement
Extreme mental or emotional disturbance: statutory mitigating factor	Baez argues evidence showed extreme disturbance	State contends record supports trial court finding otherwise	Evidence not sufficient to establish extreme mental or emotional disturbance; court’s ruling upheld
Sentencing standard: court applied correct standard post-2003 amendments	Baez argues court used pre-2003 standard	State argues balancing approach suffices under updated law	Court applied the appropriate standard; death sentence affirmed

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation requires clear, unequivocal waiver)
Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (U.S. 2006) (right to counsel of choice is not absolute; court may remove counsel under constraints)
Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1988) (limits on right to counsel of choice; discretion in appointment/removal)
Burkett v. Burnette, Burnette v. Terrell, 232 Ill.2d 522 (2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for removal of defense counsel in Illinois)
People v. Mayo, 198 Ill.2d 530 (2002) (criterion for unequivocal waiver of right to counsel; timing of decision)
People v. Lego, 168 Ill.2d 561 (1995) (standard for intelligent waiver of counsel in Faretta contexts)
People v. Thompson, People v. Thompson, 222 Ill.2d 1 (2006) (sentencing-standard and deference to trial court in capital cases)
People v. Brownell, 79 Ill.2d 508 (1980) (separate evaluation of extreme mental or emotional disturbance (mitigation))
People v. Enoch, People v. Enoch, 122 Ill.2d 176 (1988) (requirement of preserving issues via post-sentencing motions)