People v. Custer
2020 IL App (3d) 160202-B
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Custer pleaded guilty in case No. 10-CF-896 (possession of a controlled substance) via an open plea and was later sentenced to the maximum six-year term; his attorney Hendricks allegedly told him he would appeal.
- While awaiting sentencing in No. 10-CF-896, Custer was charged in other matters and later entered negotiated pleas in related cases; counsel admonished Custer about appeal prerequisites (motion to withdraw plea or motion to reconsider sentence within 30 days).
- Custer filed a pro se postconviction petition arguing Hendricks promised to appeal or otherwise failed to pursue an appeal/motion to reconsider; counsel was appointed and a supplemental petition and affidavits were filed.
- At a third-stage evidentiary hearing Custer testified Hendricks agreed to appeal and failed to file; Hendricks testified he informed Custer of appeal rights, advised low chances on appeal, and that Custer never instructed him to file.
- The circuit court credited Hendricks, denied relief, and later denied Custer’s claims that his postconviction counsel Snyder provided unreasonable assistance (including failing to call a witness, Colvin).
- On appeal the court affirmed the denial after finding the credibility determination not manifestly erroneous and concluded Snyder’s representation did not constitute unreasonable assistance in light of governing standards and the Illinois Supreme Court’s guidance in People v. Custer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Custer) | Defendant's Argument (State / Hendricks / Snyder) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred by denying the postconviction petition alleging trial counsel disregarded instructions to appeal / failed to consult about appealing | Hendricks told Custer he would appeal; Hendricks failed to file motion to reconsider or notice of appeal — Custer was prejudiced | Hendricks testified he informed Custer of appeal rights, advised low odds, and Custer never instructed him to appeal | Court upheld denial: credibility finding favored Hendricks; no manifest error in concluding Custer did not instruct appeal or that counsel was deficient |
| Whether postconviction counsel Snyder provided unreasonable assistance (conflict / failure to call Colvin) | Snyder refused to call Colvin and adopted/argued against Custer’s pro se filings, creating a conflict and failing to zealously advocate | State and court: Snyder’s tactical decision not to call Colvin was strategic; underlying claim (Colvin’s testimony) was meritless and would not establish prejudice | Court held no unreasonable assistance: supreme court precedent shows failure to call witnesses is trial strategy; underlying claim meritless so no prejudice or remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (established Krankel inquiry for trial counsel ineffectiveness claims)
- People v. Custer, 2019 IL 123339 (Ill. S. Ct.) (refused to extend Krankel preliminary-hearing procedure to claims of unreasonable assistance by postconviction counsel and clarified Rule 651(c) scope)
- People v. Ross, 229 Ill. 2d 255 (ineffective assistance framework when counsel disregards instructions to file notice of appeal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (benchmark for ineffective-assistance performance and prejudice)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (advice about appeals and prejudice standard when counsel fails to file notice of appeal)
- People v. Cotto, 2016 IL 119006 (postconviction counsel entitlement is statutory; Rule 651(c) as vehicle for reasonable assistance)
- People v. Hardin, 217 Ill. 2d 289 (postconviction counsel must be conflict-free; right to reasonable assistance includes correlative right to conflict-free counsel)
- People v. West, 187 Ill. 2d 418 (trial strategy decisions generally immune from ineffective-assistance claims)