duties mandated rule in Illinois

2026As the Suarez court noted, the proper analysis “does not depend upon whether the pro se or supplemental petitions *** did or did not contain potentially meritorious issues,” but instead is “driven *** by the conviction that where postconviction counsel does not 9 adequately complete the duties mandated by the rule, the limited right to counsel conferred by the Act cannot be fully realized.” 224 Ill. 2d at 51 .

2026See People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37, 51 (2007) (noting, “where postconviction counsel does not adequately complete the duties mandated by the rule, the limited right to counsel conferred by the Act cannot be fully realized.”).

2024Moreover, such speculation would render the appointment of counsel in postconviction proceedings “an empty formality.” Id. at 417 ; see People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37, 51 (2007) (“Our Rule 651(c) analysis has been driven, not by whether a particular defendant’s claim is potentially meritorious, but by the conviction that where postconviction counsel does not adequately complete the duties mandated by the rule, the limited right to counsel conferred by the Act cannot be fully realized”). ¶ 46 On this record, we conclude that defendant has rebutted the presumption that postconviction counsel p

2023If counsel did not comply with Rule 651(c), the reviewing court will not consider the merits of the defendant’s postconviction claims but instead must remand for further second-stage proceedings “with the benefit of reasonable assistance of counsel.” People v. Turner, 187 Ill. 2d 406, 417 (1999); see also People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37, 51 (2007) (“Our Rule 651(c) analysis has been driven, not by whether a particular defendant’s claim is potentially meritorious, but by the conviction that where postconviction counsel does not adequately complete the duties mandated by the rule, the limited r

2022The court stated that its Rule 651(c) analysis was not based on whether the postconviction petitions contained a potentially meritorious issue or issues but was driven “by the conviction that where postconviction counsel does not adequately complete the duties mandated by the rule, the limited right to counsel conferred by the Act cannot be fully realized.” Id. at 51 (citing Brown, 52 Ill. 2d at 230 ). ¶ 56 We recognize that Rule 651(c) “ ‘is merely a vehicle for ensuring a reasonable level of assistance’ [citation] and should not be viewed as the only guarantee of reasonable assistance in pos

2007See Brown, 52 Ill. 2d at 230 (“[T]he purpose underlying Rule 651(c) is not merely formal.

2021See People v. Richardson, 382 Ill.

2021See People v. Richardson, 382 Ill.

2022The court stated that its Rule 651(c) analysis was not based on whether the postconviction petitions contained a potentially meritorious issue or issues but was driven “by the conviction that where postconviction counsel does not adequately complete the duties mandated by the rule, the limited right to counsel conferred by the Act cannot be fully realized.” Id. at 51 (citing Brown, 52 Ill. 2d at 230 ). ¶ 56 We recognize that Rule 651(c) “ ‘is merely a vehicle for ensuring a reasonable level of assistance’ [citation] and should not be viewed as the only guarantee of reasonable assistance in pos

2021However, we must remand when postconviction counsel fails to fulfill his duties under Rule 651(c), for “where postconviction counsel does not adequately complete the duties mandated by the rule, the limited right to counsel conferred by the [Post- Conviction Hearing Act (Act)] cannot be fully realized.” People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37, 51 (2007). “ ‘A defendant is not required to make a positive showing that his counsel’s failure to comply with Rule 651(c) caused prejudice.’ ” People v. Ross, 2015 IL App (3d) 130077, ¶ 15 (quoting People v. Nitz, 2011 IL App (2d) 100031, ¶ 19 ).

2025People v. Wallace, 2016 IL App (1st) 142758, ¶ 25 . ¶ 119 1.

2022“Where postconviction counsel files a Rule 651(c) certificate creating a presumption of compliance, it is the defendant’s burden to overcome the - 16 - No. 1-19-1367 presumption by demonstrating his attorney’s failure to substantially comply with the duties mandated by the rule.” Id. ¶ 26; see also People v. Wallace, 2016 IL App (1st) 142758, ¶ 28 (when faced with a facially valid 651(c) certificate, the question is “whether the record positively rebuts the presumption of reasonableness”).

2026Accordingly, the Suarez court refused “to hold that noncompliance with Rule 651(c) may be excused on the basis of harmless error.” 224 Ill. 2d at 52 . ¶ 20 Likewise, Justice McLaren’s special concurrence in Nitz (see 2011 IL App (2d) 100031, ¶¶ 24-25 ), although expressed in terms of mootness, effectively imposes the same “no harm, no foul” rule, and so do the decisions in Kirkpatrick (see 2012 IL App (2d) 100898, ¶ 27 (“Once the State moved to dismiss on the merits and did not challenge the alleged procedural defects, and once the trial court conducted a hearing, during which neither party ra

2022The court stated that its Rule 651(c) analysis was not based on whether the postconviction petitions contained a potentially meritorious issue or issues but was driven “by the conviction that where postconviction counsel does not adequately complete the duties mandated by the rule, the limited right to counsel conferred by the Act cannot be fully realized.” Id. at 51 (citing Brown, 52 Ill. 2d at 230 ). ¶ 56 We recognize that Rule 651(c) “ ‘is merely a vehicle for ensuring a reasonable level of assistance’ [citation] and should not be viewed as the only guarantee of reasonable assistance in pos

2022The court stated that its Rule 651(c) analysis was not based on whether the postconviction petitions contained a potentially meritorious issue or issues but was driven “by the conviction that where postconviction counsel does not adequately complete the duties mandated by the rule, the limited right to counsel conferred by the Act cannot be fully realized.” Id. at 51 (citing Brown, 52 Ill. 2d at 230 ). ¶ 56 We recognize that Rule 651(c) “ ‘is merely a vehicle for ensuring a reasonable level of assistance’ [citation] and should not be viewed as the only guarantee of reasonable assistance in pos

2021However, we must remand when postconviction counsel fails to fulfill his duties under Rule 651(c), for “where postconviction counsel does not adequately complete the duties mandated by the rule, the limited right to counsel conferred by the [Post- Conviction Hearing Act (Act)] cannot be fully realized.” People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37, 51 (2007). “ ‘A defendant is not required to make a positive showing that his counsel’s failure to comply with Rule 651(c) caused prejudice.’ ” People v. Ross, 2015 IL App (3d) 130077, ¶ 15 (quoting People v. Nitz, 2011 IL App (2d) 100031, ¶ 19 ).