People v. Mujica, 55 N.E.3d 59

Mujica was charged with criminal sexual assault of his minor stepdaughter; the State initially offered a 4-year plea if entered by the next court date.
On November 10, 2010, defense counsel Gaffney at first said defendant would proceed to bench trial, then stated defendant reconsidered but the court refused a plea because defendant said he wanted to "make the lady happy."
Gaffney later withdrew, private counsel Perez entered; multiple continuances followed and the record contains no on-the-record acceptance of any renewed 4-year offer.
A bench trial was held August 22, 2011; defendant testified of innocence and was convicted and sentenced to seven years.
Defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging Perez was ineffective for failing to communicate defendant’s desire to accept the State’s 4-year offer; the trial court dismissed as forfeited and defendant appealed.
The appellate court held forfeiture did not apply (allegations involved facts outside the trial record) but affirmed dismissal because the trial record positively rebuts defendant’s claim that he expressed a desire to accept a plea after the court’s November refusal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petition stated gist of ineffective-assistance claim for counsel’s failure to communicate defendant’s wish to accept plea	State: dismissal proper where record rebuts allegations	Mujica: Perez failed to convey his wish to accept a 4-year plea, causing prejudice (loss of 4-year deal)	Petition may survive forfeiture but was properly dismissed because the trial record positively rebuts defendant’s allegations
Whether forfeiture bars review of the postconviction claim	State: issue forfeited if could have been raised on direct appeal	Mujica: factual allegations concern out-of-record communications, so not forfeited	Forfeiture inapplicable because key facts were outside original record
Whether counsel has duty to communicate defendant’s plea decision	State: counsel must communicate offers; decision to plead is defendant’s	Mujica: counsel failed to communicate defendant’s acceptance	Court acknowledged duty to inform/communicate but did not reach new rule; assumed possible claim but found facts rebutted here
Whether summary dismissal standard (gist test) was met	State: petition frivolous/patently without merit as record contradicts it	Mujica: petition alleged sufficient facts (affidavit) to meet gist standard	Gist standard noted as low, but summary dismissal appropriate when trial record contradicts petition

Gaultney v. State, 174 Ill. 2d 410 (Illinois 1996) (describes postconviction three-stage process and "gist" standard)
Edwards v. People, 197 Ill. 2d 239 (Illinois 2001) (petition need not plead claim in full; limited detail suffices for gist)
Hodges v. People, 234 Ill. 2d 1 (Illinois 2009) (petition is frivolous if based on indisputably meritless theory or delusional facts)
Munson v. State, 206 Ill. 2d 104 (Illinois 2002) (forfeiture inapplicable when critical allegations concern out-of-record facts)
Blair v. People, 215 Ill. 2d 427 (Illinois 2005) (issues not raised on direct appeal are generally forfeited)
Whitfield v. People, 40 Ill. 2d 308 (Illinois 1968) (defendant’s right to decide whether to plead guilty; counsel must communicate plea offers)
Sailor v. People, 43 Ill. 2d 256 (Illinois 1969) (defendant generally bound by counsel’s actions; acquiescence to counsel)
Jefferson v. People, 345 Ill. App. 3d 60 (App. Ct. Ill.) (summary dismissal appropriate when trial record contradicts petition)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)