People v. Wallace, 2016 WL 6804602

Defendant Kevin Wallace pleaded guilty in 2008 pursuant to a negotiated plea to one count of first-degree murder and one count of residential arson and received concurrent sentences of 40 years and 10 years. He did not move to withdraw the plea or file a direct appeal.
In 2013 Wallace filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging his plea resulted from impaired mental state and that trial counsel failed to investigate mental-health/drug issues; he attached family affidavits and later some prison medical records (2011–2012).
Counsel was appointed and filed a Rule 651(c) certificate stating she communicated with Wallace, reviewed the record and petition, and concluded no amendment was necessary.
The State moved to dismiss, arguing untimeliness and lack of merit; the court dismissed on the merits, finding no bona fide doubt of fitness at plea and that counsel’s actions were trial strategy, and stated it did not address timeliness.
On appeal Wallace raised (for the first time) that his concurrent sentence was void because statutes required consecutive sentences, and also argued postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance by failing to attach or obtain mental-health records and failing to amend to excuse the untimeliness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Castleberry abolishing the "void sentence" rule applies so Wallace can raise for the first time that his concurrent sentences were void when statutes mandated consecutive sentences	State: Wallace waived sentencing challenge by not raising it in postconviction petition; Castleberry abolished the Arna void-sentence rule	Wallace: Arna allowed attack on void sentence at any time; Castleberry is a new rule and should not apply retroactively to his final conviction	Court: Castleberry did not announce a new rule but abolished Arna; its holding applies retroactively; Wallace’s sentencing claim is voidable (not void) and was waived because he failed to raise it earlier
Whether postconviction counsel failed to provide reasonable assistance under Rule 651(c) by not obtaining/attaching mental-health records	State: 651(c) certificate creates presumption counsel acted reasonably; record does not rebut it	Wallace: Counsel did not obtain or attach records that would show incompetence at plea, and failed to amend to excuse untimeliness	Court: Certificate was facially valid; Wallace failed to rebut presumption. No record evidence that withheld records would help or that counsel unreasonably omitted an amendment to excuse delay

People v. Arna, 168 Ill. 2d 107 (Illinois 1995) (established the pre-Castleberry "void sentence" rule)
People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (Illinois 2015) (held a sentence is void only if the court lacked jurisdiction and abolished Arna’s void-sentence rule)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (framework for retroactivity of new rules in collateral review)
People v. Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d 34 (Illinois 2007) (Rule 651(c) duties for postconviction counsel)
People v. Turner, 187 Ill. 2d 406 (Illinois 1999) (Rule 651(c) requires counsel to amend untimely petitions to allege excuses for delay)
People v. Marshall, 242 Ill. 2d 285 (Illinois 2011) (discusses ability to attack sentences not conforming to statutory requirements)