People v. Hayes
49 N.E.3d 992
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Michael E. Hayes was convicted of armed violence, unlawful possession with intent to deliver, unlawful possession of a controlled substance, and pled guilty to aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.
- Hayes filed a pro se postconviction petition; after 90 days the court appointed counsel for second-stage proceedings.
- Appointed counsel filed a Rule 651(c) certificate, moved to dismiss the petition as frivolous, and sought leave to withdraw; counsel explained his reasons at a hearing.
- The State did not file a formal motion to dismiss or answer the petition at second stage but participated briefly in the hearing; the trial court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the petition.
- On appeal the State conceded the court erred in dismissing the petition without first filing an answer or motion to dismiss; the appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further second-stage proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed the postconviction petition based on defense counsel’s motion to dismiss/withdraw | State conceded dismissal was improper without filing an answer or motion; requested remand for proper second-stage procedure | Hayes argued dismissal based on counsel’s motion was improper and counsel provided unreasonable assistance | Court accepted State concession, reversed dismissal, and remanded so State can answer or move to dismiss and for the court to hold a hearing |
| Whether appointed postconviction counsel provided reasonable assistance under Rule 651(c) | N/A (issue evaluated by court) | Hayes argued counsel’s move to dismiss showed unreasonable assistance | Court found counsel complied with Rule 651(c), consulted Hayes, reviewed record, and reasonably concluded petition was frivolous; assistance was adequate |
| Whether Hayes is entitled to new appointed counsel on remand | State argued remand with existing counsel is proper; no statutory right to new counsel after counsel complied with Rule 651(c) | Hayes argued he should receive new counsel on remand | Court held Hayes is not entitled to new appointed counsel where prior counsel complied with Rule 651(c) and properly withdrew |
| Whether People v. Shortridge requires appointment of new counsel when appointed counsel seeks dismissal | State: Shortridge is distinguishable; not controlling | Hayes relied on Shortridge to support appointment of new counsel | Court rejected Shortridge as inapplicable: Shortridge involved counsel who refused to withdraw and effectively abandoned representation; facts here differ |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192 (Rule 651(c) duties and counsel may move to withdraw when petition frivolous)
- People v. Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d 34 (Rule 651(c) requires reasonable assistance; certificate creates presumption)
- People v. Mendoza, 402 Ill. App. 3d 808 (certificate gives rise to presumption of compliance with Rule 651(c))
- People v. Marshall, 375 Ill. App. 3d 670 (record may rebut presumption of adequate assistance despite certificate)
- People v. De La Paz, 204 Ill. 2d 426 (postconviction rights derive from statute)
- People v. Carter, 2015 IL 117709 (standards for dismissal and procedural issues on appeal)
- People v. Tenner, 206 Ill. 2d 381 (law-of-the-case principles)