2020 IL App (1st) 181220
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- In 2008 Karl Smith participated in a home invasion in which Gabriel Curiel was beaten, stabbed, and shot and his 6‑year‑old son David was shot in the head; both survived. 2011 jury trial produced multiple convictions and an aggregate 99‑year sentence.
- On direct appeal this court vacated convictions duplicative under the one‑act/one‑crime rule but otherwise affirmed.
- Smith filed a pro se postconviction petition in 2014 raising, inter alia, Brady and trial‑court error for denying a pretrial competency hearing for child witness David. The petition advanced to second stage and the Public Defender was appointed.
- APD Denise Avant filed a Rule 651(c) certificate in April 2016 and filed a written response to the State’s motion to dismiss arguing excusable untimeliness. Avant later left the office.
- APD Kristine Underwood substituted in and orally argued at the March 2018 dismissal hearing but did not file a separate Rule 651(c) certificate. The trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss. Smith appealed solely arguing Underwood’s lack of an independent Rule 651(c) certificate required remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether successor postconviction counsel who appears at a second‑stage dismissal hearing must independently comply with Ill. S. Ct. R. 651(c) when prior counsel filed a valid Rule 651(c) certificate | People: No; successor may rely on predecessor’s valid Rule 651(c) certificate and need not duplicate those duties | Smith: Successor counsel who represents the defendant at the hearing must file her own Rule 651(c) certificate; failure requires remand | Court affirmed: predecessor’s Rule 651(c) certificate created a rebuttable presumption of reasonable assistance and successor was not required to duplicate those duties; no remand warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Marshall, 375 Ill. App. 3d 670 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007) (Rule 651(c) duties need only be satisfied once; successor counsel at later stage need not duplicate second‑stage counsel’s work)
- People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37 (Ill. 2007) (describing Rule 651(c)’s consultation, record review, and amendment duties)
- People v. Custer, 2019 IL 123339 (Ill. 2019) (postconviction counsel entitled only to statutory "reasonable" assistance, not constitutional‑level representation)
- People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458 (Ill. 2006) (standard for counsel’s required assistance in postconviction proceedings)
- People v. Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d 34 (Ill. 2008) (Rule 651(c) duties ensure claims are shaped into proper legal form)
- People v. Ritchie, 258 Ill. App. 3d 164 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (interpreting analogous Rule 604(d) to require successor counsel’s certificate)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1987) (no constitutional right to counsel in postconviction collateral proceedings)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- People v. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450 (Ill. 2017) (procedural posture for advancement to second stage)
- People v. Young, 355 Ill. App. 3d 317 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (Rule 604(d) context on counsel’s duties at plea‑withdrawal hearings)