People v. Jones
2017 IL App (4th) 140594
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 2007 Korey A. Jones pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea to one count of armed robbery (Family Dollar, Nov. 2006) and one count of home invasion (Jan. 2007); in exchange the State dismissed numerous other charges, including two cases in their entirety.
- Defendant was on mandatory supervised release at the time and had previously confessed to the Walgreens robbery; victims and a lineup linked him to other incidents.
- In 2008 he filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea (dismissed as untimely). In 2012 he filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging, among other claims, ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- Counsel was appointed for postconviction proceedings, filed a Rule 651(c) certificate and an amended petition arguing trial counsel failed to advise that armed habitual criminal charges were invalid under later appellate decisions (citing Schmidt).
- The State moved to dismiss; the trial court dismissed the petition at the second stage, finding (a) postconviction counsel substantially complied with Rule 651(c) and (b) defendant failed to show prejudice under Strickland (no claim of innocence or plausible defenses to the convictions he admitted).
- On appeal the Fourth District affirmed, holding postconviction counsel’s certification was adequate and defendant failed to make the requisite showing of prejudice from any alleged deficient trial counsel performance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Jones) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postconviction counsel provided reasonable assistance under Ill. S. Ct. R. 651(c) | Counsel substantially complied with Rule 651(c); certificate and record show consultation and review | Certificate cannot be true because the court-reporter certification for the plea transcript post-dates counsel’s certificate | Held: Counsel substantially complied with Rule 651(c); defendant’s timing theory rejected |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise that armed habitual criminal charges were invalid under later caselaw | Even if counsel misadvised, defendant cannot show Strickland prejudice—no claim of innocence or plausible defenses to the convictions he pleaded to | Trial counsel’s error caused Jones to accept the plea; he would have gone to trial if advised correctly about the habitual-criminal exposure | Held: No ineffective assistance—defendant failed to show a reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial (no prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Schmidt, 392 Ill. App. 3d 689 (First Dist.) (construing aggravated battery as not qualifying as a predicate forcible felony for armed habitual criminal charge)
- In re Rodney S., 402 Ill. App. 3d 272 (Fourth Dist.) (adopting Schmidt analysis)
- People v. Phyfiher, 361 Ill. App. 3d 881 (describing first-stage postconviction screening standard)
- People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366 (discussing standards of review for postconviction dismissal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective-assistance test)