People v. Huff

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly dismissed defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief, even though defendant argued that his appointed post-conviction counsel rendered unreasonable assistance by failing to comply with requirements under Rule 651(c) when she chose to stand on defendant’s pro se petition. Defendant raised sentencing issue that formed basis of ineffective assistance of counsel claim in his post-conviction petition, and record showed that same sentencing issue had previously been rejected by Appellate Court on two occasions. As such, Appellate Court, in affirming instant dismissal, rejected defendant’s claim that appointed counsel had ethical duty to withdraw as counsel if she believed that his claim in his post-conviction petition was without merit, as opposed to merely standing on his pro se petition. Moreover, Appellate Court found that counsel had both options of withdrawing as counsel or standing on defendant’s pleadings if she believed that defendant's claim was without merit.