People v. Csaszar
2013 IL App (1st) 100467
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- In 1999 defendant Martin Csaszar paid an undercover agent (posing as a hitman) and was recorded soliciting the murder of Monica Crisan; he was convicted at a bench trial of solicitation of murder for hire and sentenced to 30 years. The conviction was upheld on direct appeal.
- In 2008 Csaszar (through retained counsel) filed a postconviction petition alleging, inter alia, incompetence/mental-health issues at the time of the offense, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and that the State tampered with the videotape evidence.
- Retained postconviction counsel omitted the videotape-tampering allegation after reviewing the tape and sent supporting affidavits and a psychiatrist’s letter; the petition was dismissed by the trial court on the State’s motion without an evidentiary hearing.
- On appeal Csaszar did not challenge the dismissal on the merits; he argued only that his privately retained postconviction counsel failed to provide the constitutionally or statutorily required reasonable assistance.
- The appellate court held that neither the Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act nor any constitutional provision or rule requires the State to assure that privately retained counsel provide reasonable assistance in postconviction proceedings.
- The court noted remedies available against retained counsel (malpractice or discipline) and the option to seek leave to file a successive petition alleging cause and prejudice based on counsel’s performance, but expressed no view on whether counsel’s deficiencies could establish cause or prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State must assure that privately retained postconviction counsel provide reasonable assistance | State: No such duty; no constitutional right to counsel in postconviction proceedings | Csaszar: Retained counsel must provide reasonable assistance; State should insure it | Held: No. The Act and Constitution do not require the State to assure reasonable assistance from retained counsel |
| Whether Supreme Court Rule 651(c) governs retained-counsel representation | State: Rule 651(c) applies only to appointed counsel assisting pro se petitioners | Csaszar: Relies on cases requiring reasonable assistance under Rule 651(c) | Held: Rule 651(c) applies only when original petition filed pro se; it does not apply to retained counsel |
| Whether the Post-Conviction Hearing Act itself creates a right to reasonable assistance from retained counsel | State: Act provides counsel only for indigent petitioners; no duty for retained counsel | Csaszar: Act (or case law interpreting it) requires reasonable assistance | Held: The Act imposes duties only where the State provides counsel to indigent petitioners; no duty to ensure retained counsel’s competence |
| Whether equal protection or cited precedent require the State to ensure competence of retained counsel | Csaszar: Equal protection and cases (Hayes, Cuyler, McCoy) suggest parity between retained and appointed counsel | State: Those authorities do not impose such a duty for postconviction proceedings | Held: No equal protection violation; cited cases do not impose a State duty to ensure retained counsel’s competence in postconviction matters |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Guest, 166 Ill. 2d 381 (postconviction proceedings carry no constitutional right to counsel)
- People v. Turner, 187 Ill. 2d 406 (interpreting Rule 651(c) duties for appointed postconviction counsel)
- People v. Kegel, 392 Ill. App. 3d 538 (retained counsel must competently represent client but State has no duty to assure that competence; successive petition possible)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429 (professional responsibilities of retained and appointed appellate counsel are the same)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (constitutional right to effective assistance at trial applies to retained and appointed counsel)
- People v. Hayes, 49 Ill. 2d 298 (rejected claim that retained postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance without deciding State’s duty)