Anders motion in Illinois

2021ANALYSIS ¶ 10 As we noted in Alexa J., an accompanying Anders brief “must set out any irregularities in the trial process or other potential error, which, although in [counsel’s] judgment not a basis for appellate relief, might *** be meritorious.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Id. (quoting In re Brazelton, 237 Ill.

2018App. 3d 269 , 271, 178 Ill.Dec. 120 , 604 N.E.2d 376 (1992) (the court denied an Anders motion that demonstrated a superficial review of the record and a misunderstanding of the applicable law); In re Alexa J. , 345 Ill.

2025The initial delay in this case was attributable to our denial of an Anders motion (see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)) filed by appellate counsel for respondent.

2025Accordingly, we find that good cause exists for filing the decision after August 22, 2025. 1 appeal lacks substantial merit and filed a motion to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), along with a memorandum of law in support of that motion. ¶3 Respondent filed an initial response to the Anders motion on August 21, 2025.

2025This court denied the original Anders motion without prejudice and allowed counsel to file a brief in support of respondent’s appeal or to file a second Anders motion that complied with In re Alexa J., 345 Ill.

2025He noted that the court “appeared to pay particular attention to assuring the Sixth Amendment right of representation of D.M. was established and maintained free of conflict.” Similarly, counsel found no issues with regards to evidentiary introduction, admissibility, or sufficiency. ¶ 43 Alexa J. demands an accompanying Anders brief “set out any irregularities in the trial process or other potential error, which, although in [counsel’s] judgment not a basis for appellate relief might *** be meritorious.” (Emphasis in original.) Alexa J., 345 Ill.

2022This court agrees with OSAD that this appeal lacks merit. ¶ 27 “A defendant does not have an automatic right to withdraw a plea of guilty.” People v. Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d 507, 520 (2009).

2021“An abuse of discretion will be found only where the court’s ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, or no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.” People v. Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d 507, 519 (2009). 10 ¶ 32 As previously mentioned, OSAD, defendant’s appointed attorney on appeal, filed an Anders motion to withdraw as counsel, on the ground that this appeal lacks merit.

2022See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re J.P., 2016 IL App (1st) 161518, ¶¶ 5-6 (pursuant to Anders, appointed counsel may request leave to withdraw from representation on direct appeal if counsel “conclude[s] that no viable grounds exist for the appeal”). ¶ 14 On August 13, 2015, defendant filed a pro se petition for relief from judgment, seeking relief under section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2014)), which was denied.

2019Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re J.P., 2016 IL App (1st) 161518, ¶¶ 5-6 (pursuant to Anders, appointed counsel may request leave to withdraw from representation on direct appeal if counsel “conclude[s] that no viable grounds exist for the appeal”). ¶ 12 In a pro se postconviction petition, filed on November 17, 2015, defendant raised several claims, only one of which he raises on appeal: that his counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of a mandatory 25-year firearm enhancement, thereby leading defendant to reject a 27-year plea offer from the State.

2024See S.M., 314 Ill.

2003S.M., 314 Ill.

2021See, e.g., In re P.J., 2018 IL App (3d) 170539, ¶ 16 (holding that evidence that respondent father took education classes while incarcerated and intended to take additional classes rebutted the presumption of depravity). ¶ 17 We hasten to add that nothing we have said should be construed as an opinion on the merits in this matter.

2021See, e.g., In re P.J., 2018 IL App (3d) 170539, ¶ 16 (holding that evidence that respondent father took education classes while incarcerated and intended to take additional classes rebutted the presumption of depravity). ¶ 17 We hasten to add that nothing we have said should be construed as an opinion on the merits in this matter.

2019See People v. Kuehner, 2015 IL 117695, ¶ 21 (motion to withdraw filed by postconviction counsel must address the lack of merit in all claims of constitutional deprivation raised in petitioner’s pro se petition). ¶ 22 Counsel provided reasonable assistance to Bass by investigating the claims he raised in his postconviction petition.

2018See People v. Kuehner , 2015 IL 117695 , ¶ 21, 392 Ill.Dec. 347 , 32 N.E.3d 655 (motion to withdraw filed by postconviction counsel must address the lack of merit in all claims of constitutional deprivation raised in petitioner's pro se petition.) ¶ 22 Counsel provided reasonable assistance to Bass by investigating the claims he raised in his postconviction petition.

2018See People v. Addison, 371 Ill.

2017App. 3d 941 , 947, 309 Ill.Dec. 590 , 864 N.E.2d 831 (2007) (allegations in postconviction petition were barred by res judicata and forfeiture because defendant had either raised issues in response to Anders motion on direct appeal or could have raised them in response).

2026In its Anders brief, OSAD states that “[t]he only manner available to appellate counsel to raise this issue on appeal would be to assert ineffective assistance of trial counsel.” 15 ¶ 43 However, as this court noted above, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a 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.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 .

2024The court’s best- interests finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 14 ¶ 44 In regard to the third potential issue raised in the Anders brief—whether Nichole was denied the effective assistance of counsel in the circuit court—this court considers the two-pronged test from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

2018I believe that he has. ¶ 30 In order to satisfy the constitutional right to a direct appeal with effective assistance of counsel set forth in Evitts v. Lucey , 469 U.S. 387 , 403-04, 105 S.Ct. 830 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985), and in order to satisfy the advocacy requirements set forth in Anders , counsel must champion at least one nonfrivolous issue pertaining to the primary judgment, whether by brief or by (agreed) motion, or move to withdraw pursuant to Anders , thereby securing for his client all of the procedural safeguards that are inherent in a direct appeal of the primary judgment or that a

2018I believe that he has. ¶ 30 In order to satisfy the constitutional right to a direct appeal with effective assistance of counsel set forth in Evitts v. Lucey , 469 U.S. 387 , 403-04, 105 S.Ct. 830 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985), and in order to satisfy the advocacy requirements set forth in Anders , counsel must champion at least one nonfrivolous issue pertaining to the primary judgment, whether by brief or by (agreed) motion, or move to withdraw pursuant to Anders , thereby securing for his client all of the procedural safeguards that are inherent in a direct appeal of the primary judgment or that a

2026No argument to the contrary would have merit. ¶ 56 The defendant’s valid plea of guilty also wrecks his postplea claim that attorney Stobbs provided ineffective assistance by not filing a motion to suppress statements on the grounds of a fourth amendment violation. “[A] voluntary guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional errors or irregularities, including constitutional ones.” People v. Townsell, 209 Ill. 2d 543, 545 (2004). ¶ 57 The second potential issue presented by OSAD in its Anders brief is whether the circuit court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw guilty plea.

2026See, e.g., In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347 , 363 (2004).

2025“The decision to grant or deny a motion 7 to withdraw a guilty plea rests in the sound discretion of the circuit court and, as such, is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” People v. Baez, 241 Ill. 2d 44, 109-10 (2011). ¶ 22 As previously noted, OSAD has concluded that this appeal lacks arguable merit, and on that basis it has filed an Anders motion to withdraw as counsel for the defendant, along with a brief in support of the motion.

2025Counsel has determined that these issues would be without arguable merit, and the circuit court’s judgment was therefore proper. 17 ¶ 55 A. Change of Permanency Goal ¶ 56 Section 2-28 of the Juvenile Court Act requires the circuit court “to establish a permanency goal that is in the best interest of the child.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re T.S., 402 Ill.

2025Counsel has determined that these issues would be without arguable merit, and the circuit court’s judgment was therefore proper. 17 ¶ 55 A. Change of Permanency Goal ¶ 56 Section 2-28 of the Juvenile Court Act requires the circuit court “to establish a permanency goal that is in the best interest of the child.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re T.S., 402 Ill.

2025In fact, considering the best interests of Zechariah before ruling on a petition of that sort would not even be permissible under our supreme court’s decision in In re A.A., 2015 IL 118605 , as appellate counsel recognizes in her Anders brief. ¶ 47 A.A. was a case wherein the GAL for a minor had filed with the circuit court, on the minor’s behalf, a petition to declare the nonexistence of a parent-child relationship between a man who 13 had signed a VAP regarding the minor and the minor himself.

2025A.A., 2015 IL 118605, ¶¶ 1, 12 .

2024See also In re R.G., 165 Ill.

2024McClernand, 3 Ill. 79, 98 (1839). ¶ 46 We also reject the State’s argument that counsel had no duty to properly present the sentencing claim because Newell already raised it in his pro se response to appellate counsel’s Anders motion.

2023“Self-defense is an affirmative defense, and once a defendant raises it, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense, in addition to proving the elements of the charged offense.” People v. Lee, 213 Ill. 2d 218, 224 (2004).

2023People v. Hall, 195 Ill. 2d 1, 20 (2000). 8 ¶ 22 OSAD, in its Anders brief, discusses the potential issue of whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty.

2023Sade’s appellate counsel initially filed an Anders motion (see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 12 738 (1967)) and supporting brief requesting withdrawal as appointed counsel finding no meritorious issue for review.

2023As OSAD suggests, such claims of error “may be better suited to collateral proceedings.” See 11 People v. Henderson, 2013 IL 114040, ¶ 22 (in certain cases or types of claims, the record will “be incomplete or inadequate to evaluate that claim because the record was not created for that purpose”). ¶ 32 CONCLUSION ¶ 33 Neither of the two potential issues raised by OSAD in its Anders brief has any arguable merit.

2022See Austin C., 353 Ill.