People v. Beasley
2017 IL App (4th) 150291
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 2009 Beasley was charged with multiple counts including three counts of first-degree murder; he pleaded guilty in 2010 to one count of first-degree murder pursuant to a negotiated plea: dismissal of other counts, removal of a firearm enhancement, and a 30-year recommendation.
- The factual basis (unobjected to) included Beasley’s in-custody statements admitting he brought a .38 revolver and fired intending to kill a target; ballistics matched the recovered gun to the bullets.
- After sentencing, Beasley filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging trial counsel failed to file a motion to withdraw the guilty plea despite Beasley’s requests and that counsel misadvised him about available defenses and lesser-included offenses; counsel later amended the petition to add claims including failure to file a suppression motion for in-custody statements.
- The trial court advanced the petition to the second stage, appointed counsel, and later dismissed the amended petition as failing to make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation; Beasley appealed.
- The State conceded that several assessments (Crime Stoppers, youth diversion, violent crime victim assistance, arrestee medical) were clerk-imposed fines lacking judicial authorization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Beasley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended postconviction petition made a substantial showing that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to withdraw the guilty plea after Beasley requested it | Even assuming Beasley asked counsel to file, Beasley failed to show prejudice — he did not demonstrate a reasonable probability a motion to withdraw would have been granted | Counsel’s failure to file a motion to withdraw presumed prejudicial under Edwards where defendant alleges counsel ignored a request to withdraw the plea | Dismissal affirmed: Beasley failed to show prejudice at stage two; must show grounds that would likely have allowed withdrawal, not merely allege counsel ignored a request |
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by affirmatively misadvising about a plausible defense (defense of another) and lesser-included offense availability, rendering the plea involuntary | The State argued Beasley did not allege he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial or specifically sought the instructions, so no Strickland prejudice was shown | Beasley argued misadvice deprived him of choice and potential defenses/lesser-included instruction, warranting relief | Dismissal affirmed: Beasley’s allegations were vague/conclusory and he failed to allege he would have pleaded not guilty and insisted on trial |
| Whether postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance by failing to support the suppression claim with evidentiary material | The State relied on the Rule 651(c) certificate and the presumption counsel reasonably attempted to obtain evidence; absence of additional affidavits is not dispositive | Beasley argued counsel offered only his notarized statement lacking proof he lacked capacity to waive rights and failed to gather supporting evidence | Dismissal affirmed: Beasley did not rebut the presumption of reasonable assistance; no showing of available supporting material was presented |
| Whether clerk-imposed assessments/fees were proper | State conceded the clerk-imposed assessments were improper fines without judicial order and should be vacated | Beasley sought vacatur of the assessments imposed by the clerk | Vacated: $5 Crime Stoppers, $5 youth diversion, $25 violent crime victims assistance, and $10 arrestee medical assessments vacated as void |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance test)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice showing for plea-related ineffective assistance requires showing defendant would have gone to trial)
- People v. Edwards, 197 Ill. 2d 239 (discusses counsel’s failure to perfect appeal by not filing motion to withdraw plea; evidentiary hearing requirements)
- People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366 (standard for substantial showing at postconviction second stage)
- People v. Hall, 217 Ill. 2d 324 (plea and ineffective-assistance principles referenced by parties)