People v. Stephenson
2021 IL App (1st) 200166-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2021Background
- Defendant Anthony Stephenson was indicted on multiple weapons-related counts and agreed to a negotiated guilty plea to one count of armed habitual criminal (AHC); State nol-prossed remaining counts and defendant was sentenced to 15 years.
- At the plea hearing defendant acknowledged understanding the rights he waived and that the agreed sentence was 15 years; he did not move to withdraw the plea or file a direct appeal.
- In a pro se postconviction petition defendant alleged plea counsel failed to file a requested motion to quash arrest, and after the plea counsel agreed to file a motion to withdraw the guilty plea but never did so (and no notice of appeal was filed).
- The circuit court summarily dismissed the petition as frivolous and patently without merit, reasoning that defendant had not shown his plea was involuntary and that Edwards was inapplicable because defendant articulated a (meritless) basis to withdraw.
- The appellate court held defendant’s allegations—taken as true at the first stage—stated the gist of an ineffective-assistance claim because counsel’s agreement then failure to file a Rule 604(d) motion deprived defendant of his procedural route to appeal; independent corroboration was excused where only counsel could corroborate.
- Result: reversal of the summary dismissal and remand for second-stage postconviction proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly summarily dismissed a pro se postconviction petition alleging plea counsel agreed to but failed to file a motion to withdraw the guilty plea, thereby forfeiting defendant's right to a Rule 604(d) motion and appeal | Edwards is inapplicable because Stephenson did articulate a ground to withdraw his plea and that ground lacked merit; the record contradicts the claim | Counsel promised to file a motion to withdraw but did not; under Edwards prejudice is presumed where counsel fails to file a requested motion to withdraw a negotiated plea, so the petition states the gist of a constitutional claim | Reversed: at the first stage petitioner stated the gist of an ineffective-assistance claim; summary dismissal was improper; remanded for second-stage proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Edwards, 197 Ill. 2d 239 (Ill. 2001) (pro se petitioner need not specify grounds for withdrawing a plea when counsel agreed to file a motion but failed to do so; prejudice presumed at first stage)
- People v. Brown, 236 Ill. 2d 175 (Ill. 2010) (first-stage postconviction petitions must present the gist of a constitutional claim; liberal construction applies)
- People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2009) (standard for summary dismissal: petition "frivolous or patently without merit" if it has no arguable basis in law or fact)
- People v. Wilk, 124 Ill. 2d 93 (Ill. 1988) (counsel's failure to preserve appellate rights by filing required motions can constitute ineffective assistance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 395 U.S. 327 (U.S. 1969) (counsel who disregards specific instructions to file a notice of appeal acts unreasonably)