ineffective assistance of counsel claim in Illinois

2026People v. Edwards, 197 Ill. 2d 239, 247 (2001). ¶ 22 We look to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984) when considering an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

2026For the following reasons, we disagree. ¶ 41 A defendant who raises an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim must satisfy the two- prong test promulgated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).

2024See, e.g., Bew, 228 Ill. 2d at 133 - 35 (the record was insufficient to address the defendant’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress based on a theory not raised in the trial court); People v. Burnett, 2019 IL App (1st) 163018, ¶ 16 (“For defendant to meet his burden of showing that his 16 trial counsel was deficient for the purpose of obtaining relief on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim [for failing to file a “motion to quash arrest”], defendant must establish a factual basis for his claim.

2024See, e.g., Bew, 228 Ill. 2d at 133 - 35 (the record was insufficient to address the defendant’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress based on a theory not raised in the trial court); People v. Burnett, 2019 IL App (1st) 163018, ¶ 16 (“For defendant to meet his burden of showing that his 16 trial counsel was deficient for the purpose of obtaining relief on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim [for failing to file a “motion to quash arrest”], defendant must establish a factual basis for his claim.

2025Our supreme court has adopted the Strickland test in considering an ineffective assistance of counsel claim (People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504, 526 (1984)), and we review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under a de novo standard.

2015See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504, 527 (1984) (we may dispose of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim by proceeding directly to the prejudice prong without addressing counsel’s performance).

2025App. 3d 1121, 1130 (2003) (stating that “[a] reviewing court will not take judicial notice of critical evidentiary material that was not presented to and not considered by the fact finder during its deliberations.”). ¶ 100 Turning to the merits of defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance, “[t]he decision whether to call particular witnesses is a matter of trial strategy and thus will not ordinarily support an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.” People v. Patterson, 217 Ill. 2d 407, 442 (2005).

2022See People v. Patterson, 217 Ill. 2d 407, 438 (2005) (the first determination in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to file a motion to suppress is whether the court would have granted the motion).

2021People v. Evans, 209 Ill. 2d 194, 220 (2004); People v. McCarter, 385 Ill.

2020Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690 . ¶ 67 The second prong requires that the defendant establish prejudice by showing “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding arguably would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 . “[A] reasonable probability that the result would have been different is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome—or put another way, that counsel’s deficient performance rendered the result of [the proceedings] unreliable or fundamentally unfair.” People v. Evans, 209 Ill. 2d 194, 220 (2004). ¶

2024“To establish the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in these circumstances, the defendant must show there is a reasonable probability that, absent counsel’s errors, the defendant would have pleaded not guilty and insisted on going to trial.” Id. -8- ¶ 28 To prove defendant guilty of stalking, as charged in the instant case, the State was required to prove that defendant knowingly engaged in a “course of conduct” directed at the victim, and he knew or should have known that this course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress. 720 ILCS

2022When a defendant’s ineffective assistance claim is based on counsel’s conduct during a guilty plea, the prejudice analysis requires that a defendant demonstrate not only that he would have pleaded not guilty but for counsel’s unreasonable conduct, but also that the defendant “likely would have been successful at trial.” Id. at 335-36 . ¶ 34 To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must establish both prongs.

2026People v. Hale, 2013 IL 113140 , ¶ 17. ¶ 37 “An ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim which arises from a matter of defense strategy will not support a finding of ineffective representation.” People v. Smith, 177 Ill. 2d 53, 93 (1997).

2026See - 13 - No. 1-24-1652 People v. Hale, 2013 IL 113140, ¶ 17 (“[W]e may dispose of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim by proceeding directly to the prejudice prong without addressing counsel’s performance.”). ¶ 42 C.

2025Overall, to prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, “[the] defendant must show that 21 there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” People v. Lefler, 294 Ill.

2024Overall, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “[the] defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” People v. Lefler, 294 Ill.

2022See People v. Bew, 228 Ill. 2d 122, 135 (2008) (“Strickland requires actual prejudice be shown, not mere speculation as to prejudice.”); People v. Palmer, 162 Ill. 2d 465, 481 (1994) (“Proof of prejudice” for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “cannot be based on mere conjecture or speculation as to outcome.”) Given the speculation involved in demonstrating the prejudice component of trial counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness, - 22 - No. 1-20-0287 the underlying issue had no merit and defendant cannot show arguable prejudice from his appellate counsel’s failure to argue this issue on dire

2017It is nearly axiomatic that counsel's choice of trial strategy is " 'virtually unchallengeable' and will generally not support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim." People v. Walton , 378 Ill.App.3d 580 , 589, 317 Ill.Dec. 1 , 880 N.E.2d 993 (2007) (quoting People v. Palmer , 162 Ill.2d 465 , 476, 205 Ill.Dec. 506 , 643 N.E.2d 797 (1994) ).

2020People v. Ramey, 152 Ill. 2d 41, 54 (1992).

2012People v. Ramey, 152 Ill.2d 41, 54 , 178 Ill.Dec. 19 , 604 N.E.2d 275 (1992).

2025If it is easier to dispose of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the ground that it lacks sufficient prejudice, then a court may “proceed directly to the second prong and need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient.” People v. Givens, 237 Ill. 2d 311, 331 (2010). -8- No. 1-23-1024 ¶ 28 To start, this court notes that the circuit court dismissed defendant’s petition based in part on defendant failing to attach the relevant documentation for his claim, i.e., the phone records detailing that he made a call on October 22, 2007.

2025If it is easier to dispose of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the ground that it lacks sufficient prejudice, a court may “proceed directly to the second prong and need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient.” People v. Givens, 237 Ill. 2d 311, 331 (2010). ¶ 41 Here, defendant has failed to show that he was prejudiced by counsel’s decision not to use the 911 call at trial.

2023People v. Pugh, 157 Ill. 2d 1, 15 (1993) (citing Hill, 474 U.S. at 59 ). ¶ 18 Because a defendant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim will fail if either prong of the Strickland test is not met, a reviewing court need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient before determining whether he was prejudiced.

2021People v. Sanchez, 169 Ill. 2d 472, 487 , 662 N.E.2d 1199, 1208 (1996). “[T]he two-part Strickland v. Washington test applies to challenges to guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985). ¶ 23 OSAD argues defendant’s pro se petition failed to state the gist of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim because there is no indication his counsel performed deficiently.

2025“To prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel's deficient performance resulted in prejudice.” People v. Johnson, 2021 IL 126291, ¶ 52 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984)).

2025See People v. Johnson, 2021 IL 126291, ¶ 53 (“[I]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffective- assistance of counsel claim on the ground that it lacks a showing of sufficient prejudice, a court may proceed directly to Strickland’s prejudice prong and need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient.”).

2021To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, defendant must show that (1) her 7 “counsel’s performance was deficient in that ‘counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment,’ ” and (2) but for “defense counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ).

2020To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, defendant must show that (1) his “counsel’s performance was deficient in that ‘counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment,’ ” and (2) but for “defense counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the 3 proceeding would have been different.” Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ).

2025Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ¶ 33 “To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) the attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) the attorney’s deficient performance prejudiced the defendant in that, absent counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different.” People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 90 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). ¶ 34 “In evaluating an attorney’s performance for purposes of an ineffective assistan

2025Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ¶ 32 “To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) the attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) the attorney’s deficient performance prejudiced the defendant in that, absent counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different.” People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112 , ¶ 90 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). ¶ 33 “In evaluating an attorney’s performance for purposes of an ineffective assista

2022Id. ¶ 131. ¶ 128 In rejecting the defendant’s claim, the supreme court noted the similarity between the court’s review of a forfeited claim under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of the plain-error doctrine and review of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the prejudice prong: “Plain error review under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error is similar to an analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel based on evidentiary error insofar as a defendant, in either case, must show he was prejudiced: that the evidence is so closely balanced that the alleged error alone

2021“A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Peterson, 2017 IL 120331, ¶ 79 , 106 N.E.3d 944 . “[W]e may dispose of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim by proceeding directly to the prejudice prong without addressing counsel’s performance.” Hale, 2013 IL 113140, ¶ 17 . ¶ 29 In People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 133 , 956 N.E.2d 379 , the supreme court highlighted the similarities between first-prong plain error and a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel: “Plain-error r

2025People v. Simpson, 2015 IL 116512, ¶ 35 . ¶ 43 In the context of a claim of ineffective assistance during a guilty plea proceeding, the first prong of Strickland remains the same, but to establish the second prong, a guilty-plea defendant “ ‘must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.’ ” People v. Brown, 2017 IL 121681, ¶ 26 (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985)).

2020We acknowledge that our supreme court has held that in order to establish the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “a guilty-plea defendant ‘must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.’ ” People v. Brown, 2017 IL 121681, ¶ 26 (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985)).

2020See People v. Pinkonsly, 207 Ill. 2d 555, 567 (2003) (“[S]ection 2-1401 proceedings are not an appropriate forum for ineffective-assistance claims because such claims do not challenge the factual basis for the judgment.”) Because the defendant’s claim could not have been appropriately raised in a section 2-1401 petition, it is not barred by res judicata. ¶ 14 To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the defendant must demonstrate that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient and that he suffered prejudice as a result of his counsel’s deficient conduct.

2019The Walker court noted that, subsequently, the supreme court in People v. Pinkonsly , 207 Ill. 2d 555 , 568, 280 Ill.Dec. 311 , 802 N.E.2d 236 (2003), held that it was inappropriate to hold appointed counsel in section 2-1401 proceedings to the ineffective assistance of counsel standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2023Domagala, 2013 IL 113688, ¶ 35 . ¶ 17 When evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, this court applies the two-part test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

2022Domagala, 2013 IL 113688, ¶ 35 . ¶ 11 In the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a postconviction petition must make a substantial showing that (1) counsel’s performance was so deficient that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

2022Id. ¶ 131. ¶ 128 In rejecting the defendant’s claim, the supreme court noted the similarity between the court’s review of a forfeited claim under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of the plain-error doctrine and review of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the prejudice prong: “Plain error review under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error is similar to an analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel based on evidentiary error insofar as a defendant, in either case, must show he was prejudiced: that the evidence is so closely balanced that the alleged error alone

2021Jan.1, 1967); People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 , 186–87 (2005)), or alternatively, under an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

2024People v. Veach, 2017 IL 120649, ¶ 30 . ¶ 70 Where, as here, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is predicated on counsel’s conduct during pretrial suppression proceedings, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that had counsel not committed the purported error, the trial court would have granted the motion to suppress, and the result of the trial would have differed if the suppressed evidence had not been introduced.

2024When considering an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 . “[A] court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’ ” Id. (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955)). “ ‘A defendant must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test and a failure to satisfy