Summary
The Illinois Supreme Court considered whether a defendant’s postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance by failing to raise an alleged deficiency in Rule 605(b) admonishments. The court held that the admonishment issue was forfeited because it was not raised in either the pro se or amended postconviction petition, and that postconviction counsel was not required to investigate or present claims the defendant had not raised. The court reversed the appellate court’s judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Pendleton forfeited his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 605(b) admonishments by failing to raise that claim in either his pro se or amended postconviction petition.
- Whether appointed postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance under Supreme Court Rule 651(c) by failing to raise the Rule 605(b) admonishment issue.
- Whether Pendleton preserved a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
- Whether the appellate court properly reversed the circuit court's denial of postconviction relief.
Holdings
- A claim not raised in either the original or an amended postconviction petition is forfeited and may not be raised for the first time on appeal.
- Postconviction counsel is required to investigate and properly present the petitioner's claims, but is not required to examine the record for or raise additional claims that the petitioner did not present.
- An issue not raised in the appellate court is waived for purposes of review by the Illinois Supreme Court.
- A defendant may pursue defaulted claims through a successive postconviction petition by satisfying the cause-and-prejudice requirements.
Key quotations
“In any event, we need not resolve this case on the merits of defendant's arguments because defendant has forfeited the admonishment issue under general principles of procedural default.” (*1009)
“Post-conviction counsel is only required to investigate and properly present the petitioner's claims.” (*1009)
Factual background
Pendleton pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement under which the State agreed not to charge him with an unrelated offense; the parties reached no agreement on sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the circuit court imposed consecutive terms totaling 75 years. The court gave Rule 605(b) admonishments concerning review of the sentence but did not advise him about filing a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Pendleton filed no postjudgment motion or notice of appeal, and his postconviction petitions did not raise the admonishment issue.
Procedural history
Pendleton pleaded guilty to two counts of home invasion and two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault and received a 75-year aggregate consecutive sentence. He filed a pro se postconviction petition, followed by an amended petition prepared by appointed counsel; the circuit court denied relief. The appellate court reversed and remanded, concluding that postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance by failing to raise the alleged inadequacy of the Rule 605(b) admonishments. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the circuit court.
Remand instructions
None stated; the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the circuit court's denial of postconviction relief.