Defendant appealed from an order of the circuit court granting the State’s motion to dismiss his amended petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. Defendant argued on appeal that he did not receive reasonable assistance from post-conviction counsel because, more than 16 years after defendant filed his pro se post-conviction petition, counsel submitted an amended petition that disregarded his pro se claims and instead raised a new, meritless claim. The appellate court affirmed, finding that defendant was no worse off where post-conviction counsel chose to pursue a single issue that was not successful instead of the meritless issues raised by defendant in his pro se petition. The appellate court also declined to find that delay alone constituted non-compliance with Rule 651(c). (McLAREN and BIRKETT, concurring)
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Post-Conviction Hearing Act