People v. Custer

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to reconsider its prior denial of defendant’s post-conviction petition, where defendant alleged that his post-conviction counsel rendered unreasonable assistance by merely stating at third-stage post-conviction hearing on defendant’s pro se motion to reconsider that defendant’s motion “speaks for itself” and failing to call defendant’s girlfriend to support allegations in his motion to reconsider. While defendant was not present at said hearing, Appellate Court, in reversing trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to reconsider, found that trial court should have conducted Krankel-like inquiry into defendant’s pro se claim of unreasonable assistance of post-conviction counsel to allow trial court to determine if new counsel needed to be appointed for purpose of avoiding conflict, developing record regarding defendant’s claim, or limiting any issues on appeal. In its petition for leave to appeal, State argued that Appellate Court wrongfully extended holding in Krankel to proceedings under Post-Conviction Act.