Background
Robert W. Boner III pleaded guilty to first-degree murder for strangling his former paramour and received a 40-year prison sentence. In his initial direct appeal, the appellate court remanded because the circuit court had not given the required postplea admonishments. After Boner was properly admonished in April 2007, appointed counsel filed motions to withdraw the guilty plea and reconsider the sentence, but the record showed no hearing or ruling on either motion before the case was closed.
Boner filed a pro se postconviction petition in 2022, asserting actual innocence based on an involuntary-intoxication defense and arguing that his mental illness excused the late filing. Appointed postconviction counsel amended the petition to allege that appellate counsel had been ineffective for failing to challenge the sentence as excessive. The circuit court dismissed the petition at the second stage, finding the sentencing claim meritless and the approximately 14½-year filing delay culpably negligent.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District reversed, holding that Boner rebutted the presumption created by postconviction counsel’s facially valid Illinois Supreme Court Rule 651(c) certificate. Although counsel certified that he had reviewed the record, his sole amended claim attacked appellate counsel for failing to challenge the sentence on the earlier appeal—even though that appeal had successfully obtained a remand permitting precisely such a challenge.
The court concluded that counsel’s failure to address the highly irregular remand proceedings showed that he had not substantially fulfilled his duty to examine the record and make amendments necessary to present Boner’s claims adequately. In particular, counsel overlooked postplea counsel’s failure to obtain rulings on the pending motions, the apparent absence of a Rule 604(d) certificate, and a potential ineffective-assistance claim arising from the loss of Boner’s opportunity for a merits appeal.
The court held that Boner’s conviction remained intact and became final on April 27, 2007, when he received the required admonishments. His unresolved postplea motions were presumed abandoned, but whether his claims were timely, excused by a lack of culpable negligence, or otherwise meritorious must be developed by new postconviction counsel and decided by the circuit court in further second-stage proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 651(c) certificate creates a rebuttable presumption of reasonable assistance, but the record may rebut that presumption when counsel overlooks obvious procedural irregularities and advances a facially nonviable claim.
- When postconviction counsel fails to perform Rule 651(c)’s required duties, remand is required without first deciding whether the petition’s claims have merit.
- The proper remedy was appointment of new postconviction counsel and renewed second-stage proceedings, not immediate permission to file new postjudgment motions in the underlying criminal case.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that appointed postconviction counsel must investigate the complete procedural history and reshape pro se allegations when necessary for adequate presentation. A certification of compliance cannot substitute for a meaningful review when the record reveals a potentially significant claim that counsel ignored.
The decision also clarifies that abandoned postplea motions do not leave a conviction indefinitely nonfinal. At the same time, counsel’s failure to pursue those motions may support postconviction relief if it deprived the defendant of an opportunity to challenge the plea or sentence on direct appeal. The order was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances allowed by that rule.