People v. Csaszar
2017 WL 715990
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 1999 defendant Martin Csaszar paid an undercover agent (Shaffer) $500 and was recorded soliciting a murder-for-hire of Monica Crisan; he was arrested and convicted after a bench trial of solicitation of murder for hire and sentenced to 30 years.
- At trial the court had ordered and received a psychiatric evaluation finding Csaszar fit to stand trial and legally sane at the time of the offense.
- Csaszar drafted a postconviction petition in 2006 alleging, among other things, that the surveillance videotape had been tampered with; he later retained private counsel to prepare and file a petition.
- Retained postconviction counsel filed a petition raising claims of incompetence, trial counsel ineffectiveness, and failure to investigate mental-health issues, but did not assert the videotape-tampering claim after counsel and Csaszar’s sister reviewed the tape and found no sign of tampering.
- The trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the petition without an evidentiary hearing; on appeal the only issue pressed was whether privately retained postconviction counsel failed to provide the constitutionally required reasonable level of assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether privately retained postconviction counsel must provide a "reasonable level of assistance" equivalent to appointed counsel | State: originally argued no constitutionally enforceable duty for privately retained counsel; courts need not police private counsel’s performance | Csaszar: retained counsel failed to provide reasonable assistance by not investigating/raising videotape-tampering claim | After People v. Cotto, the court applied the reasonable-assistance standard to private counsel and held counsel did provide reasonable assistance; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether counsel’s omission of the videotape-tampering claim was unreasonable | State: counsel reviewed the tape and found tampering claim meritless; Rule 651 duties satisfied | Csaszar: counsel should have further investigated and pleaded tampering and related ineffective-assistance claims | Court found record supports counsel’s decision as reasonable; no basis to disbelieve counsel’s explanation or to conclude nonfrivolous claim was abandoned |
| Whether remand is required when privately retained counsel provides inadequate postconviction assistance | State: remand not necessarily required under prior precedent | Csaszar: sought relief if counsel ineffective | Court acknowledged Cotto requires reversal/remand if private counsel fails to provide reasonable assistance, but found no such failure here |
| Whether counsel complied with Rule 651 duties (consultation, record review, amendment) | State: counsel filed Rule 651 compliance and met duties | Csaszar: alleges inadequate investigation despite stated compliance | Court held counsel met the Rule 651 duties and reasonably declined to pursue frivolous claims |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458 (Ill. 2006) (defines postconviction counsel duties: consult defendant, examine record, amend petition if needed)
- People v. Kegel, 392 Ill. App. 3d 538 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (discusses professional duties of privately retained postconviction counsel)
- People v. Csaszar, 375 Ill. App. 3d 929 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007) (prior appeal affirming conviction)
- People v. Cotto, 2016 IL 119006 (Ill. 2016) (Illinois Supreme Court: privately retained counsel must meet same reasonable-assistance standard as appointed counsel)