2020 IL App (4th) 180683-U
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Defendant Clarance Thompkins was convicted after a 2011 bench trial of home invasion and armed robbery and sentenced to 45 years (including a 15‑year firearm enhancement). His direct appeal was affirmed.
- Multiple pro se postconviction petitions were filed and dismissed; in Sept. 2017 Thompkins filed a successive petition asserting actual innocence (new eyewitness affidavit) and ineffective assistance claims.
- The trial court initially denied the successive petition for procedural defects (missing affidavit); on rehearing the missing affidavit (Keith Bland) was filed, the petition was advanced to second stage, and counsel was appointed.
- Appointed counsel filed an amended successive postconviction petition (raising only the actual‑innocence claim) and a Rule 651(c) certificate asserting multiple consultations, record review, and necessary amendments.
- An evidentiary hearing was held (Bland testified but the court found him not credible; the court also introduced a prison record showing the person Bland identified was incarcerated on the crime date). The trial court denied the petition.
- On appeal Thompkins argued postconviction counsel failed to provide reasonable assistance under Ill. S. Ct. R. 651(c); the appellate court affirmed, holding counsel complied and the facially valid Rule 651(c) certificate created a rebuttable presumption of compliance that Thompkins did not overcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Thompkins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postconviction counsel provided reasonable assistance by complying with Ill. S. Ct. R. 651(c) | Counsel filed a facially valid 651(c) certificate, consulted multiple times, reviewed the record, amended the petition appropriately, and therefore complied; certificate creates rebuttable presumption of compliance | Certificate is facially invalid and counsel failed to comply: certificate did not verbatim track Rule 651(c), counsel did not review the Diciaula docket (not in record when certificate filed), consultations were inadequate, and counsel omitted meritorious claims | Court affirmed: certificate was not facially invalid; presumption of compliance applied and the record shows counsel reasonably complied with Rule 651(c); no remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37 (2007) (remand required if postconviction counsel fails any Rule 651(c) duty)
- People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458 (2006) (counsel need not advance frivolous or spurious claims)
- People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192 (2004) (same—no duty to press frivolous claims)
- People v. McNeal, 194 Ill. 2d 135 (2000) (postconviction review limited to claims not previously or readily raised on direct appeal)
- People v. Rissley, 206 Ill. 2d 403 (2003) (procedural default bars claims that could have been raised earlier)
- People v. Turner, 187 Ill. 2d 406 (1999) (right to counsel in postconviction proceedings is statutory and limited to the Act’s standard of assistance)
- People v. Flores, 153 Ill. 2d 264 (1992) (the Post‑Conviction Hearing Act provides only a reasonable level of assistance)
- People v. Kuehner, 2015 Ill. 117695 (2015) (explains when counsel must explain omitted claims—required when seeking to withdraw)