People v. Kuehner, 32 N.E.3d 655

In 2005, 17-year-old Danny Kuehner pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree murder and home invasion; he later sought to withdraw the plea and was sentenced to consecutive 17½-year terms.
Kuehner filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, including that trial counsel lied and manipulated his family to force a guilty plea and concealed exculpatory evidence; affidavits from his mother and aunt corroborated these claims.
The trial court found the petition at first stage was "not frivolous or patently without merit" and appointed counsel; the State filed a motion to dismiss.
Appointed counsel later moved to withdraw under Finley/Anders principles, filing a brief addressing some claims (e.g., failure to investigate mental illness, sentencing disparity) but never addressing the alleged lies/manipulation claims.
The trial court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the petition; the appellate court affirmed, concluding Rule 651(c) compliance and lack of merit could be gleaned from the record.
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that where the petition advanced to second stage after an affirmative judicial finding of nonfrivolousness, a motion to withdraw must explain why each pro se claim is frivolous or patently without merit; new postconviction counsel was ordered on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Kuehner)	Held
Whether appointed counsel could withdraw after the petition advanced on an affirmative first-stage finding	The record shows counsel complied with Rule 651(c) and claims are frivolous; Greer allows withdrawal if record supports it	Counsel’s motion failed to address key claims (alleged lies/manipulation); withdrawal improper without explaining why each claim lacks merit	Where petition advanced by affirmative finding, a motion to withdraw must explain why each pro se claim is frivolous; counsel’s motion here was inadequate — reversal and remand
Whether appellate/trial courts may affirm a facially deficient withdrawal motion based on other parts of the record	Greer permits affirmance if Rule 651(c) compliance and lack of merit are shown in the record despite a deficient motion	The record does not show compliance or that all claims are frivolous; courts should not affirm without counsel addressing each claim	Courts may affirm a deficient motion only when the record independently shows Rule 651(c) compliance and all claims lack merit; that was not established here

People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192 (2004) (permitted withdrawal of postconviction counsel in limited circumstances and discussed Rule 651(c) duties)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for counsel seeking to withdraw when claim appears frivolous)
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (limits on right to counsel in postconviction proceedings)
People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37 (2007) (explains purpose of counsel duties to frame pro se postconviction claims)
People v. Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d 34 (2007) (Rule 651(c) ensures counsel presents claims in proper legal form)
People v. Burnett, 237 Ill. 2d 381 (2010) (discusses motion to reconsider analogies and standards)