People v. Frey

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly granted defendant’s post-conviction counsel to withdraw as counsel and then subsequently denied defendant’s post-conviction petition under circumstances, where defendant alleged that his counsel failed to ascertain one of defendant’s pro se contentions in his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. Appellate Court, in reversing trial court and remanding matter for appointment of new post-conviction counsel, found that defendant’s post-conviction counsel did not provide reasonable assistance under Rule 651(c) by failing to address defendant’s due process claim that jury’s second note indicated that not all jurors concurred in ultimate guilty verdict. Ct. further observed that fact that counsel generally stated that he had reviewed all of defendant’s pleadings did not satisfy Rule 651(c), where counsel did not mention specific jury note issue in his motion to withdraw.