People v. Endicott

Summary

The Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, reviewed the dismissal of portions of Scott P. Endicott’s amended postconviction petition. The court held that postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance by failing to address the petition’s untimeliness and remanded for further second-stage proceedings with new counsel, while concluding that the sex-offender-registration claim was nonmeritorious because the defendant was not subject to registration under the applicable statute.

Holdings

1. Postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance by failing to amend the petition to allege facts supporting the contention that the untimely filing was not the defendant's culpable negligence, particularly after the State raised the statute-of-limitations defense.
2. Postconviction counsel did not provide unreasonable assistance by declining to amend the petition to assert that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Endicott about lifetime sex-offender registration because Endicott's murder convictions did not require registration under the Sex Offender Registration Act.
3. The portion of the circuit court's order dismissing the claims as untimely was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further second-stage proceedings with new postconviction counsel.

Questions Presented

1. Whether postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 651(c) by failing to amend the petition to allege that the late filing was not due to the defendant's culpable negligence.
2. Whether postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance by failing to include a claim that plea counsel should have admonished the defendant about lifetime sex-offender registration.
3. What remedy follows from postconviction counsel's noncompliance with Rule 651(c).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded