People v. Malone
2017 IL App (3d) 140165
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- William A. Malone was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault (natural life), home invasion (30 years), aggravated robbery (reduced on appeal), and failure to register as a sex offender; sentences for the non‑life convictions run concurrent and consecutive to the life term.
- Malone filed a pro se postconviction petition raising multiple claims: duplicative charging/lesser‑included offense issue, juror bias, prosecutor misconduct, and ineligibility for a natural life sentence based on prior offenses.
- The trial court appointed postconviction counsel; the State moved to dismiss the petition and the court held a dismissal hearing.
- Postconviction counsel did not amend the pro se petition or submit supporting affidavits; counsel filed a Rule 651(c) certificate and stated he would stand on the pro se petition at the hearing.
- The trial court allowed Malone to speak and to submit further documentation but Malone submitted none; the court granted the State’s motion to dismiss and denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postconviction counsel provided reasonable assistance under Rule 651(c) | Counsel complied with Rule 651(c) by consulting, reviewing the record, and filing a certificate; no amendments were required | Malone: counsel was "in name only" and should have amended the petition or withdrawn if claims were meritless | The court held counsel provided reasonable assistance; the Rule 651(c) certificate creates a presumption of compliance that Malone failed to rebut |
| Whether counsel was required to amend a frivolous pro se petition | Counsel is not required to amend frivolous claims; may stand or withdraw | Malone: counsel should have amended to better present claims | Court: counsel need not amend frivolous claims and is not required to "go fishing" for supporting evidence |
| Whether counsel had to withdraw if he believed claims were meritless | Withdrawal is permitted but not compelled under the Act | Malone: if counsel could not amend, he should have withdrawn to allow Malone to proceed pro se | Court: withdrawal is discretionary; standing on the petition is not constitutionally defective and gave Malone opportunity to speak and submit evidence |
| Whether this case is controlled by People v. Shortridge | State: Shortridge is distinguishable because counsel there confessed the motion to dismiss | Malone: relies on Shortridge to show ineffective assistance | Court: distinguished Shortridge because counsel here did not confess the motion to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pace, 386 Ill. App. 3d 1056 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (postconviction counsel not required to amend frivolous pro se petition)
- People v. Stovall, 47 Ill. 2d 42 (Ill. 1970) (failure to present affidavits not neglect absent showing of available supporting facts)
- People v. Vasquez, 356 Ill. App. 3d 420 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (counsel need not search for evidence outside the record to support claims)
- People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192 (Ill. 2004) (postconviction counsel may withdraw when petition’s allegations are frivolous)