People v. Schlosser, 2017 IL App (1st) 150355

John Schlosser was convicted after a bench trial of multiple counts (involuntary manslaughter, two aggravated batteries, two home invasions); on direct appeal the court vacated several counts and left two convictions intact but did not remand for resentencing.
Schlosser filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging insufficient evidence, unfair sentence, and failure to call character witnesses; counsel was appointed and filed a Rule 651(c) certificate but did not amend the petition initially.
Trial court dismissed the petition at the second stage as conclusory and forfeited; this court reversed in 2012, finding postconviction counsel’s performance unreasonable and remanded for leave to amend.
On remand the same appointed assistant public defender (APD) represented Schlosser, made limited and delayed amendments, filed a sparse new Rule 651(c) certificate, failed to meaningfully litigate the appellate-ineffectiveness claim, and the trial court again granted the State’s motion to dismiss.
The appellate court held that reappointing the same counsel who previously provided inadequate representation was error, Rule 651(c) duties were not satisfied, and remand for appointment of new postconviction counsel (with leave to amend and to provide supporting documentation) was required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reappointment of same postconviction counsel after prior finding of inadequate representation was proper	State: no waiver; remand did not require new counsel	Schlosser: reappointment denied his right to reasonable statutory assistance because counsel previously failed Rule 651(c) duties	Reversed: reappointment of same APD was error; new counsel must be appointed
Whether Rule 651(c) duties were satisfied on remand	State: APD filed certificate and amended petition	Schlosser: certificate and amendment were inadequate, lacked proof of communication and specific amendments	Held: Rule 651(c) not satisfied—insufficient consultation, record review, and meaningful amendment
Whether ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim was adequately presented on remand	State: amended petition insufficient and lacked specificity	Schlosser: counsel failed to timely and effectively amend/present the claim as directed by prior remand	Held: counsel failed to pursue the remanded claim and did not attempt to overcome procedural bars
Whether dismissal without remand was appropriate despite counsel failures	State: petition was conclusory and forfeited; no need to remand for new counsel	Schlosser: remand required because inadequate counsel prevented adequate presentation	Held: Remand required under Supreme Court precedent to allow complete record and meaningful counsel performance

Suarez v. Illinois, 224 Ill. 2d 37 (Ill. 2007) (remand required where postconviction counsel failed to fulfill Rule 651 duties)
Turner v. United States, 187 Ill. 2d 406 (Ill. 1999) (postconviction statutory right to counsel is limited and requires compliance with procedural duties; court-appointed new counsel may be required)
Johnson v. Illinois, 154 Ill. 2d 227 (Ill. 1992) (postconviction counsel must ascertain claims, shape them legally, and present them)
Pendleton v. Illinois, 223 Ill. 2d 458 (Ill. 2006) (second-stage burden: defendant must make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation)
Perkins v. Illinois, 229 Ill. 2d 34 (Ill. 2007) (postconviction counsel must attempt to overcome procedural bars to adequately present claims)
Boclair v. Illinois, 202 Ill. 2d 89 (Ill. 2002) (third-stage evidentiary hearing required if substantial showing made)
Flores v. Illinois, 153 Ill. 2d 264 (Ill. 1992) (Act provides for reasonable assistance of counsel)
Lacy v. Illinois, 407 Ill. App. 3d 442 (Ill. App. 1st 2011) (procedural outline of postconviction stages)
Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 408 Ill. App. 3d 564 (Ill. App. 1st 2011) (de novo review explanation)