People v. Heard
8 N.E.3d 447
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Defendant pled guilty to criminal sexual assault in 2005 as part of a fully negotiated plea and received a 10-year sentence; no direct appeal filed.
- In 2012, defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for lying and misrepresenting facts.
- The circuit court appointed Sara Mayo to represent defendant in the postconviction proceeding.
- Defendant filed a pro se motion to recuse court-appointed counsel in April 2012; the State moved to dismiss the postconviction petition.
- At a June 2012 hearing, Mayo withdrew at defendant’s request; the court allowed withdrawal and defendant proceeded pro se.
- In August 2012 the trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the postconviction petition; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand is required for Rule 651 compliance | Heard contends remand is needed for Rule 651(c) compliance. | State argues Rule 651 compliance not required after withdrawal at defendant’s request. | Remand not required; withdrawal at defendant’s request forecloses Rule 651 duties. |
| Whether defendant had a right to proceed pro se in postconviction proceedings | Defendant asserts right to pro se submission remains valid. | Defendant invoked the right to proceed pro se after counsel’s withdrawal. | Defendant properly proceeded pro se; waiver was voluntary and unequivocal. |
| Whether Greer governs the need for Rule 651 compliance after withdrawal | Greer requires compliance before withdrawal under certain circumstances. | Greer does not control when withdrawal is at defendant’s request and not based on meritorious claims. | Greer does not require counsel to comply before withdrawal in this context; no remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37 (2007) (remand required when postconviction counsel fails to comply with Rule 651)
- People v. Gray, 2013 IL App (1st) 101064 (2013) (right to proceed pro se in postconviction proceedings)
- People v. Baez, 241 Ill. 2d 44 (2011) (valid waiver to proceed pro se in postconviction)
- People v. Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d 34 (2007) (Rule 651(c) responsibilities to shape claims)
- People v. Porter, 122 Ill. 2d 64 (1988) (circumstances when Rule 651 duties apply post-appointment)
- People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192 (2004) (withdrawal permitted but after compliance with Rule 651)