People v. McDonald
95 N.E.3d 1
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2018Background
- Richard A. McDonald pled guilty in 2012 to felony criminal damage and violation of an order of protection; court advised a 4-year period of mandatory supervised release (MSR) would attach to the violation conviction. He did not appeal.
- McDonald filed a pro se postconviction petition (2014) claiming he was not fully informed that, as an indigent registered sex offender without suitable residence, his MSR could effectively be served in custody ("violated at the door").
- The same attorney who handled the plea (Cosby) was initially appointed postconviction counsel, filed a Rule 651(c) certificate, argued analogously to Padilla at the second-stage hearing but did not amend the petition, then withdrew because he might be a witness.
- New counsel (Woller) was appointed for the third-stage evidentiary hearing; he did not file an amended petition, called no witnesses, and argued only that the court failed to give adequate admonishments. The court denied relief.
- The appellate court considered (1) whether McDonald retained standing after his MSR expired and he was released, and (2) whether postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance by failing to amend the petition to present an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim.
- The appellate court vacated the denial and remanded, holding McDonald retains standing (because he filed while in custody) and that postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance by not amending the petition and by failing to present prejudice evidence at the third-stage hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek postconviction relief after release | McDonald filed while imprisoned; should still be eligible for relief despite later release | State contended relief is unavailable if petitioner is no longer in custody | Held: McDonald retains standing because he timely filed while in custody; Davis supports relief and rule of lenity favors petitioner |
| Whether postconviction counsel provided "reasonable assistance" under Rule 651(c) | McDonald: counsel should have amended the pro se petition to allege trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise about MSR consequences | State: counsel not unreasonable because such a claim would be meritless | Held: Counsel was unreasonable for failing to amend; remand required regardless of claim merit when counsel derelict |
| Proper legal theory for the claim (court admonishment vs. ineffective assistance) | McDonald: claim is properly framed as ineffective assistance of counsel (counsel failed to advise about MSR consequences) | State/court: argument that the trial court’s Rule 402 admonishments were sufficient; direct-admonishment theory likely fails under Delvillar | Held: Remand for counsel to amend to an ineffective-assistance theory is appropriate; court noted admonishment theory is weak under precedent |
| Remedy required when counsel fails to amend | McDonald: request a new third-stage evidentiary hearing with amended petition | State: argued merits would defeat necessity | Held: Vacated denial and remanded with instruction that appointed counsel file an amended petition and the case proceed to a new third-stage evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise regarding certain collateral consequences—deportation—when clear)
- People v. Turner, 187 Ill. 2d 406 (1999) (postconviction counsel must amend pro se petition when necessary for adequate presentation)
- People v. Davis, 39 Ill. 2d 325 (1968) (defendant who filed while in custody but was released before disposition may still obtain relief)
- People v. Dale, 406 Ill. 238 (1950) (Act intended for those actually deprived of liberty; language suggesting custody focused on relief)
- People v. Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d 507 (2009) (court need only advise defendant of direct consequences of plea)