People v. Thiele
2022 IL App (4th) 200450-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2022Background
- Ronald W. Thiele was indicted on two counts of unlawful delivery of heroin and one count of possession with intent to deliver (15–100 grams) after two controlled buys and a search that recovered 149 small bags of heroin from his jeans.
- At trial Meints (the confidential source) testified to the buys; police recovered many small prepackaged bags, and Thiele admitted buying 13 packs in Cicero, using some, and selling to support his habit; the jury convicted on all counts.
- Thiele raised multiple claims in a pro se postconviction petition; the first-stage dismissal was reversed and remanded by this court, which found it arguable counsel prejudiced Thiele by failing to advise him of a right to submit a lesser included-offense instruction for count III.
- On first remand appointed counsel amended the petition; the circuit court dismissed, this court again found the defendant had received unreasonable assistance of postconviction counsel and remanded a second time.
- On the second remand postconviction counsel filed a second-amended petition focusing on trial counsel’s alleged failure to inform Thiele about tendering a simple-possession lesser-included instruction and filed a Rule 651(c) certificate; the State moved to dismiss and the circuit court granted the motion at the second stage.
- Thiele appealed, arguing (1) trial counsel was ineffective for not informing him of his right to submit a lesser included instruction (prejudice), and alternatively (2) his postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel’s failure to inform defendant about submitting a lesser included-offense instruction (simple possession) deprived defendant of effective assistance and caused prejudice | Evidence showed intent to deliver; the jury already rejected the personal-use defense so an instruction would not have changed the verdict | Counsel failed to advise Thiele of his right to decide on tendering the lesser instruction; evidence could support simple possession (heavy personal use), so prejudice exists | No substantial showing of prejudice; record shows overwhelming evidence of intent to deliver and jury rejected the personal-use defense, so Strickland prejudice not shown; claim dismissed |
| Whether postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance (Rule 651(c)) | Counsel filed a proper Rule 651(c) certificate and focused on the arguably strongest claim; failing to press losing or redundant arguments is not unreasonable | Counsel did not follow this court’s language from prior remands, failed to attach the proposed instruction, and did not adequately amend or argue prejudice | Counsel’s certificate created a rebuttable presumption of reasonable assistance; counsel was not unreasonable here and defendant failed to show a Rule 651(c) violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458 (2006) (three-stage Post-Conviction Hearing Act framework)
- People v. Evans, 186 Ill. 2d 83 (1999) (applying Strickland in Illinois)
- People v. Lander, 215 Ill. 2d 577 (2005) (postconviction counsel must provide a reasonable level of assistance and Rule 651(c) obligations)
- People v. Serrano, 286 Ill. App. 3d 485 (1997) (distinguishing affirmative-defense instruction errors from lesser-included-offense instruction issues)
- People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37 (2007) (remand required if postconviction counsel fails to comply with Rule 651(c))