People v. Strickland
92 N.E.3d 512
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Charles Strickland pled guilty to unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon and was sentenced to 7 years (waived PSI); he did not file a motion to vacate or a direct appeal.
- Clerk’s record listed six additional assessments (victims, probation, drug court, child advocacy, court system, ISP assistance) though the court imposed no fines at sentencing.
- After sentencing, Strickland filed three pro se post‑trial motions (two in August 2014 challenging elevation and counsel effectiveness/statute, and a nunc pro tunc claim in Feb 2015 seeking additional presentence credit); none cited the Post‑Conviction Hearing Act (the Act).
- Court appointed counsel (William Davis) for the pro se motions; the State filed motions to dismiss characterizing the filings as a postconviction petition; Davis then filed to withdraw under Finley with an Illinois Supreme Court Rule 651(c) certificate.
- On August 18, 2015 the trial court granted Davis’s motion to withdraw, stated it was allowing the State’s motion to dismiss the postconviction petition, and dismissed defendant’s pleadings; Strickland appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by recharacterizing pro se motions as a postconviction petition without Shellstrom admonitions | State: court properly treated motions as postconviction filings and dismissed them on the merits | Strickland: court recharacterized pro se motions without Shellstrom warnings and thus risked procedural forfeiture | Court: vacated dismissal and remanded — Shellstrom admonitions required because recharacterization occurred while defendant returned to pro se status when counsel withdrew |
| Whether Shellstrom applies when recharacterization occurs at second‑stage dismissal after counsel withdraws | State: Shellstrom not required where counsel was appointed earlier (Stoffel) | Strickland: Shellstrom applies because the dispositive recharacterization occurred when court allowed counsel to withdraw, leaving him pro se | Court: extended Shellstrom to these circumstances because the order that recharacterized coincided with return to pro se status |
| Whether the six assessments in the clerk’s record should remain | State ultimately conceded these assessments were fines not imposed by the court | Strickland: clerk’s assessments are clerical errors and must be vacated | Court: vacated the six assessments and directed clerk to correct the record |
| Whether Rule 651(c) certificate or counsel’s filings cured need for admonitions | State/concurring judge: appointment of counsel and Rule 651(c) compliance obviate Shellstrom protections (per Stoffel) | Strickland: counsel’s filings do not substitute for the court’s affirmative admonitions to a pro se litigant upon recharacterization | Court: rejected that Rule 651(c) or counsel’s filings absolved the court of giving Shellstrom admonitions when recharacterization left defendant pro se |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Shellstrom, 216 Ill. 2d 45 (2005) (court must notify pro se litigant before recharacterizing a pleading as first postconviction petition and allow withdrawal/amendment)
- People v. Stoffel, 239 Ill. 2d 314 (2010) (Shellstrom admonitions unnecessary when counsel is appointed to represent defendant)
- People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458 (2006) (scope of counsel’s obligations under Rule 651(c) and postconviction representation)
- People v. Davis, 156 Ill. 2d 149 (1993) (postconviction petitioners not entitled to investigative advocacy beyond the petition)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (limits on counsel’s obligation in postconviction proceedings)