People v. Blanchard
43 N.E.3d 1077
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant Antonio Blanchard was convicted of armed robbery; victim identified him in a lineup and the victim's credit card was recovered and admitted at trial. Defendant received a 40-year sentence.
- Defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (including failure to challenge a suggestive lineup), police perjury, falsified evidence regarding the credit card, and actual innocence; he attached transcripts, police report excerpts, and a lineup photograph.
- The Cook County Public Defender was appointed as postconviction counsel, who filed Rule 651(c) certificates stating she consulted with Blanchard and examined the common law record and transcripts; she did not explicitly state she reviewed trial exhibits.
- Trial counsel filed a supplemental postconviction petition and the State moved to dismiss; the trial court granted dismissal.
- On appeal the key contested points were (1) whether postconviction counsel provided reasonable assistance under Ill. S. Ct. R. 651(c) by failing to review trial exhibits (the lineup photo and the victim's credit card) and (2) whether Blanchard is entitled to $5/day presentence custody credit (capped at $50) against the $50 court system fee under 55 ILCS 5/5-1101(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postconviction counsel complied with Ill. S. Ct. R. 651(c) by examining the record | State: counsel's certificates and record show consultation and examination of the common law record and transcripts; presumption of reasonable assistance applies | Blanchard: counsel failed to review trial exhibits (lineup photo and victim's credit card) critical to his claims; certificates are insufficient | Remanded: Certificates did not explicitly address exhibits referenced in petition; court ordered counsel to comply with Rule 651(c) regarding those exhibits and allowed supplemental certificate, then for circuit court to reconsider petition |
| Whether Blanchard is entitled to $5/day presentence custody credit against the $50 court system fee | State: the $50 charge is a fee, not a fine, and not subject to presentence credit | Blanchard: the court system charge is a fine and subject to $5/day credit for time in custody (399 days), up to $50 | Held for Blanchard: under People v. Graves and following appellate authority the $50 court system fee is a fine; Blanchard gets credit up to $50; clerk ordered to modify fines and fees and adjust related victim assistance fine |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d 34 (establishes Rule 651(c) duties and requirement of reasonable assistance)
- People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458 (postconviction counsel not required to advance nonmeritorious claims)
- People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192 (same principle regarding nonmeritorious claims)
- People v. Graves, 235 Ill. 2d 244 (section 5-1101 charges characterized as fines)
- People v. Jamison, 229 Ill. 2d 184 (effect on related Victim Assistance fine when adjusting other fines)