2020 IL App (4th) 180715-U
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- In March 2017 defendant Brian T. Kocher was charged with three counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child; he pleaded guilty to one count under a partially negotiated plea with the State capping its sentencing recommendation at 23 years.
- The trial court accepted the plea and on June 15, 2018 sentenced Kocher to 23 years' imprisonment.
- Within 30 days of sentencing Kocher wrote a pro se letter to the court asking the judge to “make a ruling of an ineffective council [sic]” and listing ten allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel; the clerk’s docket entry states only that copies were provided to counsel.
- No further proceedings addressed that letter; months later Kocher filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, which the trial court denied as untimely; Kocher appealed.
- The appellate court considered whether the trial court erred by not appointing postplea counsel under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) after receiving the pro se letter and ultimately remanded for appointment of counsel and further proceedings under Rule 604(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review for whether Rule 604(d) required appointment of counsel | State argued abuse of discretion should apply and highlighted factual context (evidence of guilt/aggravation) | Kocher argued the question is legal and review should be de novo | Court applied de novo review (State forfeited its contrary argument) |
| Whether the trial court was required to appoint postplea counsel after receiving Kocher's pro se letter within 30 days asserting ineffective assistance | State argued Trussel/Barnes inapplicable because Kocher did not allege involuntariness/innocence and thus no mandate to appoint | Kocher argued the letter contained the rudiments of an ineffective-assistance claim and Rule 604(d) entitles him to counsel to perfect a postplea motion | Court held the letter, liberally construed, demonstrated a desire to seek relief and contained rudiments of an IAC claim; trial court erred by not appointing counsel and remanded for appointment and Rule 604(d) proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Trussel, 397 Ill. App. 3d 913 (2010) (pro se post‑sentencing letter containing rudiments of ineffective‑assistance claim requires appointment of counsel and Rule 604(d) proceedings)
- People v. Barnes, 291 Ill. App. 3d 545 (1997) (trial judge must ascertain representation and, if indigent, appoint counsel to assist with postplea motion; pro se postplea motions must be liberally construed)
- People v. Ledbetter, 174 Ill. App. 3d 234 (1988) (because of strict waiver rules, fairness requires a defendant be able to explain allegations with counsel’s assistance)
- People v. Clark, 386 Ill. App. 3d 673 (2008) (ineffective assistance of counsel can render a guilty plea involuntary)