People v. Profit
974 N.E.2d 813
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Profit was convicted after a severed bench trial of attempted first‑degree murder and armed robbery, receiving two consecutive 18‑year terms.
- Dent testified against Profit; she had earned a deal with the State and pled guilty to robbery with probation, providing key testimony.
- On direct appeal, the sufficiency of the evidence and Apprendi challenges were rejected; the conviction and sentence were affirmed.
- Profit filed a sequence of postconviction petitions beginning in 2002, with various pro se pleadings and later counsel‑appointed filings.
- In 2009 postconviction counsel filed a Rule 651(c) certificate asserting consultation and adequacy of the claims, and stated there was nothing to add by amendment.
- The State moved to dismiss for failure to meet cause‑and‑prejudice and for res judicata/ collateral estoppel; the trial court dismissed the petition, and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 651(c) certificate created a presumption of reasonable assistance | Profit | Profit | Presumption attached; defendant failed to rebut. |
| Whether counsel’s failure to file amended petitions from pro se filings undermines compliance | Profit | Profit | No reversal; no merit shown in the omitted amendments. |
| Whether jury‑deal information and preservation issues were properly addressed | Profit | Profit | The jury‑ward claim foreclosed; not preserved or not meritorious. |
| Whether counsel should have amended in response to State’s dismissal arguments | Profit | Profit | Counsel not required to file speculative amendments; no error. |
| Whether the petition was properly dismissed under cause‑and‑prejudice and res judicata | Profit | Profit | Dismissal proper; no substantial Rule 651(c) breach. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d 34 (2007) (three duties of counsel under Rule 651(c) and amendments may be necessary to excuse late filing)
- People v. Jones, 2011 IL App (1st) 092529 (2011) (presumption of reasonable assistance; burden to rebut)
- People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37 (2007) (remand required when Rule 651(c) violation shown; harmless error not assumed)
- People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192 (2004) (fulfillment of Rule 651(c) not to advance frivolous claims; substantial compliance suffices)
- People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444 (2002) (cause‑prejudice standard; fundamental fairness governs successive petitions)