People v. Ross
40 N.E.3d 461
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- In 1996 Ross pleaded guilty to one count of felony murder under a negotiated agreement capping sentence at 60 years; other counts were dismissed. He received credit for time in Rock Island County jail starting July 20, 1996.
- Ross later alleged trial counsel Weinberg misadvised him about how amended truth-in-sentencing rules would affect the portion of the 60-year term he would actually serve, inducing the guilty plea.
- Ross filed multiple pro se and counseled postconviction petitions raising ineffective-assistance claims; his pro se sworn statement relied on section 1-109 of the Civil Code but was not notarized.
- At a third-stage evidentiary hearing both Ross and Weinberg testified, but postconviction counsel failed to elicit testimony or submit an affidavit supporting Ross’s truth-in-sentencing claim.
- The trial court denied relief; on appeal the appellate court reversed and remanded, holding postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance and ordering credit for 67 days Ross spent in Wisconsin custody prior to extradition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Ross) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ross’s guilty plea was induced by ineffective assistance of trial counsel (misadvice about truth-in-sentencing) | Trial court found no merit; Weinberg disputed claims | Weinberg misapplied truth-in-sentencing law and told Ross he would serve far less if he pled guilty, so Ross would have gone to trial but for the advice | Remanded for further evidentiary proceedings because postconviction counsel unreasonably failed to present supporting affidavit/testimony; ineffective-assistance claim not resolved on the merits |
| Whether Ross’s unsworn section 1-109 statement sufficed as an affidavit under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act | State argued statement insufficient and challenged credibility | Ross argued statement qualified as “other evidence” under the Act | Statement did not qualify as an affidavit; section 1-109 does not apply to postconviction petitions |
| Whether postconviction counsel provided reasonable assistance under Rule 651(c) | State relied on counsel’s Rule 651(c) certificate | Ross argued counsel failed to correct the defective affidavit, failed to present testimony, and abandoned the claim | Court held counsel’s assistance unreasonable for failing to present affidavit or question Ross at hearing; remand required regardless of claim merit |
| Whether Ross is entitled to presentence custody credit for 67 days in Wisconsin | State conceded error on credit issue | Ross sought additional 67 days credit | Court ordered credit of 67 days and adjustment of fines on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applies Strickland prejudice standard to plea challenges)
- People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37 (postconviction counsel must consult, examine record, and amend; remand required for noncompliance)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (defendant must show rejecting plea would have been rational)
- People v. Caballero, 228 Ill. 2d 79 (presentence custody credit may be raised on appeal)