People v. Jones
50 N.E.3d 1260
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Thomas E. Jones was convicted of aggravated battery of his two‑month‑old son after a jury acquitted him of first‑degree murder; sentence 25 years. Trial evidence included autopsy photographs and a redacted videotaped police interview in which Jones demonstrated how he handled the child.
- Defense objected at trial to the State’s use of a redacted version of the videotape, arguing the omissions (questioning leading to demonstrations and purportedly exculpatory answers) deprived the jury of necessary context; the trial court admitted the redacted video but did not send it to the jury during deliberations and allowed autopsy photos to go back to the jury.
- On direct appeal counsel raised only an excessive‑sentence claim; counsel did not challenge the evidentiary rulings. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.
- Jones filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging the redacted videotape and autopsy photos denied him a fair trial. Appointed postconviction counsel filed a Rule 651(c) certificate and amended the petition to allege ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise those evidentiary issues, but did not attach the full videotape, affidavits, or the autopsy photos.
- The trial court dismissed the amended petition at the second stage. On appeal the Third District held appointed counsel failed to provide reasonable assistance under Rule 651(c) with respect to the redacted videotape claim (failing to amend to include ineffective‑trial‑counsel allegations or to attach/describe omitted statements), reversed, and remanded for new second‑stage proceedings and appointment of new counsel to amend the petition and attach the videotape and autopsy photos. Justice Carter dissented.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Jones's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appointed postconviction counsel satisfied Rule 651(c) regarding the redacted videotape claim | Rule 651(c) satisfied by certificate; counsel adequately raised appellate counsel ineffectiveness and was not required to invent or pursue ineffective‑trial‑counsel claims beyond the pro se petition | Counsel should have amended to include ineffective‑trial‑counsel for failing to introduce/offer the omitted portions and should have attached the full tape or affidavit describing omitted statements | Reversed: record rebuts presumption of reasonable assistance as counsel failed to plead facts or attach tape/affidavit and failed to raise the trial‑counsel angle necessary to fairly present the pro se claim; remand for new counsel to amend and attach evidence |
| Whether appointed counsel adequately amended to challenge autopsy photographs | Photographs are in the trial record; no obligation to attach them to the petition; appellate counsel was not ineffective for not raising their admission | Counsel should have attached the autopsy photos to the amended petition | Majority did not resolve the merits of adequacy fully; ordered that on remand counsel must attach the autopsy photographs to the amended petition (remand directed). Dissent would have affirmed dismissal on this point |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d 34 (Rule 651(c) requires counsel to shape claims into proper legal form)
- People v. Turner, 187 Ill. 2d 406 (postconviction counsel may amend pro se claims to avoid forfeiture)
- People v. Davis, 156 Ill. 2d 149 (postconviction counsel required to investigate and properly present petitioner's claims)
- People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37 (remand required where postconviction counsel fails Rule 651(c) duties)
- People v. Johnson, 154 Ill. 2d 227 (unsupported petition claims must be dismissed absent affidavits or records)
- People v. Szabo, 144 Ill. 2d 525 (Rule 651(c) ensures counsel secures adequate presentation of claims)
- People v. Mendoza, 402 Ill. App. 3d 808 (presumption of adequate assistance from filing Rule 651(c) certificate)
- People v. Rials, 345 Ill. App. 3d 636 (postconviction counsel not required to comb the record for issues not raised in the pro se petition)
- People v. Helton, 321 Ill. App. 3d 420 (similar limitation on counsel's duty to invent new issues)