People v. Lesley, 2018 IL 122100

Myron Lesley pled guilty in 2013 to possession with intent to deliver and delivery of controlled substances and later filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel and improper consecutive sentences.
The circuit court appointed successive public defenders; Lesley repeatedly refused to cooperate with appointed counsel, acted belligerently, and attempted to hire private counsel but did not succeed.
After several continuances and the public defender moving to withdraw, the court warned Lesley that he could not choose a different public defender and that his options were to cooperate, hire private counsel, or proceed pro se.
Lesley appeared pro se at the hearing on the State’s motion to dismiss and at the subsequent evidentiary hearing where his petition was denied.
The appellate court reversed, holding the trial court erred by permitting counsel to withdraw without first warning Lesley that continued noncooperation could cause him to lose appointed counsel; the State sought review in the Illinois Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Lesley)	Held
Whether Lesley lost his statutory right to appointed postconviction counsel by his conduct (waiver by conduct)	Lesley was warned repeatedly that refusing to cooperate would leave him with hire counsel or proceed pro se; his continued refusal and failure to retain counsel manifested an implied waiver	Court failed to warn him that continued noncooperation would result in loss of appointed counsel; his conduct did not justify forfeiture	Court held Lesley knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appointed counsel by conduct after repeated warnings; requiring him to proceed pro se did not err
Whether the trial court needed to make additional admonishments about dangers of self-representation before allowing counsel to withdraw	No special additional admonitions were required beyond warnings that no further public defender would be appointed and his options	Argued the court should have explicitly explained disadvantages of self-representation	Court found existing warnings and the record sufficient to show Lesley understood consequences; no additional script mandated
Whether the appellate court’s remedy (remand for appointment of counsel) was appropriate	N/A (issue raised by State on appeal)	N/A	Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and remanded for consideration of Lesley’s remaining claim about the evidentiary standard

Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (no constitutional right to counsel in postconviction proceedings)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (waiver is intentional relinquishment of a known right)
United States v. Fazzini, 871 F.2d 635 (defendant’s refusal to cooperate after warning can establish waiver)
United States v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092 (waiver by conduct following warning)
Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (knowing and intelligent waiver requires awareness of nature and consequences of right)
People v. Myles, 86 Ill. 2d 260 (trial court discretion in granting continuances/substitution of counsel)