People v. Lesley
2017 IL App (3d) 140793
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Myron Lesley pled guilty in 2013 to possession with intent to deliver and delivery of a controlled substance in exchange for consecutive prison terms; four charges were dismissed.
- He filed a postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel and sentencing error (consecutive sentences). The State moved to dismiss.
- Multiple public defenders were appointed; Lesley repeatedly clashed with appointed counsel (verbal abuse, grabbing papers) and told attorneys to leave or be fired.
- The trial court granted continuances to allow Lesley to retain private counsel, ultimately permitted the public defender to withdraw, and required Lesley to proceed pro se at the second-stage evidentiary hearing when he had not retained private counsel.
- At the evidentiary hearing plea counsel testified; the court denied Lesley’s postconviction petition. Lesley appealed, arguing the court forced him to proceed pro se without proper warning and applied the wrong legal standard at the hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly required Lesley to proceed pro se after conflict with appointed counsel | State: postconviction counsel is statutory; Rule 401 admonitions not required in postconviction; Lesley effectively forfeited counsel by misconduct | Lesley: court never warned him that continued misconduct could waive his right to appointed counsel; no knowing, intelligent waiver | Reversed: court erred by allowing withdrawal/forcing pro se without warning that conduct could forfeit statutory right to counsel; remanded for appointment of counsel and new proceedings |
| Whether Lesley forfeited counsel by sufficiently severe misconduct (no warning needed) | State: misconduct was severe enough to forfeit counsel (relying on forfeiture precedents) | Lesley: misconduct was not so severe to dispense with warning requirement | Held for Lesley: misconduct not severe enough to justify forfeiture without warning |
| Whether admonitions akin to Rule 401(a) are required before finding waiver by conduct in postconviction proceedings | State: Rule 401 not applicable to postconviction; statutory right is different | Lesley: regardless of origin of right, warning required before waiver by conduct | Held for Lesley: court required to warn defendant that continued misconduct could result in loss of appointed counsel before treating conduct as waiver |
| Remedy and next steps | State: affirmed denial of petition | Lesley: request reversal and new counsel/hearing | Held: reversed and remanded for appointment of counsel and new second-stage proceedings; appointed counsel may amend petition and State may respond |
Key Cases Cited
- Pendleton v. People, 223 Ill. 2d 458 (discusses level of assistance required in postconviction proceedings)
- Munson v. People, 206 Ill. 2d 104 (postconviction assistance is reasonable, not constitutional, standard)
- State v. Hampton, 92 P.3d 871 (Ariz. 2004) (forfeiture reserved for most severe misconduct)
- United States v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092 (3d Cir. 1995) (distinguishes forfeiture from waiver by conduct; warning requirement)
- United States v. McLeod, 53 F.3d 322 (11th Cir. 1995) (forfeiture where defendant’s pervasive misconduct made warning unnecessary)
- People v. Rissley, 206 Ill. 2d 403 (prejudice standard for plea-withdrawal/ineffective-assistance claims)
- People v. Hall, 217 Ill. 2d 324 (related discussion on plea/counsel challenges)