Petitioner challenged the second-stage dismissal of her post-conviction petition, arguing that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel after the trial court allowed appointed counsel to withdraw and appointed successor counsel. The Supreme Court held that where the circuit court grants statutory appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw without making a finding that the petition lacks merit and before the State files an answer or motion to dismiss, the withdrawal order is interlocutory. The court further found that counsel’s failure to amend defendant’s pro se petition and failure to correct an unnotarized affidavit rebutted the Rule 651(c) certificate’s presumption of reasonable assistance. (CUNNINGHAM, ROCHFORD, and O’BRIEN, concurring. THEIS, OVERSTREET, and HOLDER WHITE, dissenting.)
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Post-Conviction Hearing Act