People v. Fathauer, 2019 IL App (4th) 180241

Defendant Lynn Fathauer was convicted (Jan 2012) of participating in methamphetamine manufacture and obstruction; sentenced to 20 years (meth) and 3 years concurrent (obstruction).
Key prosecution witness Daron Trudeau testified that he and Fathauer cooked meth, Fathauer acted as lookout/handled the jar, and Trudeau told Fathauer to throw a mason jar from the vehicle; Trudeau had pending meth-related charges and gave multiple police interviews with some inconsistent statements.
On direct appeal this court affirmed, finding the jury reasonably credited Trudeau despite inconsistencies and motive to lie.
Fathauer filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate police interviews and properly impeach Trudeau; the trial court appointed counsel at the second stage.
Appointed postconviction counsel filed a written motion to withdraw under People v. Kuehner, attaching the full trial transcript and the direct-appeal opinion and explaining why each pro se claim was meritless; the trial court granted withdrawal and later granted the State’s motion to dismiss the petition.
On appeal Fathauer argued the court erred in permitting counsel to withdraw and that postconviction counsel was ineffective for not amending the petition; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	People's Argument	Fathauer's Argument	Held
Whether postconviction counsel properly withdrew under Kuehner	Counsel identified information not apparent on face of petition (full trial transcript and prior appellate decision) and explained why each claim was meritless	Counsel should not have been allowed to withdraw because the petition stated the gist of an IAC claim	Withdrawal was proper: counsel met Kuehner by bringing record-based information showing claims were meritless
Whether petition stated the gist of an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim (failure to investigate/impeach Trudeau)	The record contradicts the claim: trial counsel cross‑examined and impeached Trudeau about his interviews; appellate court previously found cross‑examination effective	Trial counsel failed to investigate and effectively impeach Trudeau with prior inconsistent statements; prejudice was likely	Claim contradicted by the record and appellate precedent; not the gist of a viable IAC claim
Whether postconviction counsel was ineffective for not amending the pro se petition	Counsel complied with Rule 651(c); cannot be ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim	Counsel should have amended to better plead IAC against trial counsel	Counsel was not ineffective; he complied with Rule 651(c) and need not pursue frivolous claims

People v. Kuehner, 32 N.E.3d 655 (Ill. 2015) (postconviction counsel must explain, with respect to each pro se claim, why it is actually frivolous or without merit when moving to withdraw)
People v. Hodges, 912 N.E.2d 1204 (Ill. 2009) (defines frivolous or patently without merit as having no arguable basis in law or fact)
People v. Greer, 817 N.E.2d 511 (Ill. 2004) (postconviction counsel entitled to provide reasonable — not constitutional — assistance; Rule 651(c) duties explained)
People v. Pecoraro, 677 N.E.2d 875 (Ill. 1997) (decision whether and how to cross‑examine is trial strategy and generally will not support an IAC claim)
People v. Allen, 32 N.E.3d 615 (Ill. 2015) (low first‑stage threshold: pro se petition survives if it states gist of a constitutional claim)