The court held that post-conviction counsel rendered unreasonable assistance by failing to frame the issues in defendant’s amended post-conviction petition as ones of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and that the appellate court properly remanded the case for compliance with SCR 651(c). The court explained that defendant made the necessary claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel when he filed his post-conviction petition and that counsel did not comply with Rule 651(c) when she eliminated those claims when she filed an amended petition and that, as a result, defendant had rebutted the presumption of reasonable assistance under the rule. (NEVILLE, HOLDER WHITE, CUNNINGHAM, and O’BRIEN, concurring and THEIS and OVERSTREET, dissenting)
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Post-Conviction Hearing Act