People v. Jackson
58 N.E.3d 10
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Jarvis Jackson pled guilty in 2001 to two counts of first-degree murder and received natural life; he later sought relief claiming actual innocence and ineffective assistance based on new affidavits and other materials.
- Jackson filed an initial postconviction petition (2006) that was summarily dismissed; an appeal affirmed the dismissal.
- In 2009 Jackson obtained leave to file a successive postconviction petition and was appointed postconviction counsel. New notarized affidavits and records were submitted.
- Postconviction counsel filed a combined "Motion to Dismiss/Leave to Withdraw" (a Greer motion), arguing the petition was frivolous and seeking permission to withdraw; the prosecution orally agreed and asked the court to rule.
- The trial court granted counsel leave to withdraw and then dismissed Jackson’s successive postconviction petition. Jackson appealed the dismissal.
- The appellate majority reversed and remanded, holding (1) appointed counsel may not move to dismiss a client’s petition at the second stage, (2) the State failed to properly move (in writing) to dismiss, and (3) counsel’s withdrawal motion did not comply with Rule 651/Kuehner requirements, so new counsel must be appointed on remand. Justice Schmidt dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May appointed postconviction counsel file a motion to dismiss a client’s petition at the second stage? | State: a motion adopting counsel’s position is acceptable; prosecution supported dismissal. | Jackson: counsel cannot argue against client's interests by moving to dismiss; a Greer motion must be withdrawal-only. | Held: Counsel may not move to dismiss; filing a dismissal motion for the petitioner is improper. |
| Must the State file a written motion to dismiss under 725 ILCS 5/122-5? | State: "move to dismiss" suffices; oral adoption at hearing met the statute. | Jackson: the statute contemplates a filed (written) motion; oral statements are insufficient and deny notice. | Held: The Act requires the State to file (not merely orally make) a motion to dismiss; oral acquiescence was insufficient. |
| If counsel is allowed to withdraw at second stage, what must counsel’s motion include? | State (implicit): combining Greer motion with dismissal is permissible. | Jackson: motion to withdraw must explain why each claim is frivolous/patently without merit per Kuehner and Rule 651(c). | Held: Counsel failed to explain why all claims were frivolous/patently without merit; motion inadequate. |
| Appropriate remedy when improper dismissal occurs after withdrawal motion? | State: dismissal was proper after court found claims meritless; no need to appoint successor counsel. | Jackson: dismissal improper; remand for appointment of new postconviction counsel to represent defendant’s interests. | Held: Reverse and remand; trial court must appoint new postconviction counsel and proceed (dismissal vacated). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192 (Ill. 2004) (authorized counsel withdrawal where counsel concludes petitioner’s claims are frivolous under Rule 137)
- People v. Sherman, 101 Ill. App. 3d 1131 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981) (postconviction counsel should not move to dismiss petition for client; oral dismissal motion improper)
- People v. Kitchen, 189 Ill. 2d 424 (Ill. 2000) (due process concerns when dismissal occurs without adequate notice or opportunity to respond)
- People v. Bounds, 182 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 1998) (similar due process protections in postconviction proceedings)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures for counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal when appellate claims are frivolous)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1988) (limitations on counsel acting contrary to client’s interests)