Background
Tyshontis Campbell pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated battery with a firearm arising from an armed restaurant robbery in which two employees were injured. After direct-review and initial postconviction proceedings, Campbell obtained leave to file a successive postconviction petition. The Third District reversed the petition’s summary dismissal and remanded for second-stage proceedings.
On remand, appointed postconviction counsel moved to withdraw on the ground that Campbell’s petition lacked arguable merit, but the motion did not address one of Campbell’s claims. When the circuit court asked whether counsel’s withdrawal was acceptable, Campbell said he had “no problem” and “no issue” with it. He then filed an amended petition pro se, which the circuit court dismissed on the State’s motion. On appeal, Campbell argued that the court failed to assess counsel’s withdrawal motion properly and that counsel failed to address every claim.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District first held that it had jurisdiction. Although the circuit clerk received Campbell’s notice of appeal after the filing deadline, Campbell’s compliant proof of service established that, as a self-represented incarcerated litigant, he placed the notice in institutional mail within the permitted period. The mailbox rule therefore made the notice timely.
The court affirmed the dismissal under the invited-error doctrine. Campbell expressly agreed to counsel’s withdrawal, proceeded pro se, filed an amended petition, and did not challenge the withdrawal until appeal. Because he agreed to the procedure he later attacked, the court declined to consider whether counsel’s withdrawal motion was deficient or whether the circuit court inadequately reviewed it. Considering the entire record, the court also concluded that Campbell clearly, knowingly, and intelligently waived his statutory right to postconviction counsel.
Key Takeaways
- An incarcerated self-represented litigant may invoke the mailbox rule by submitting a compliant proof of service showing timely deposit in institutional mail.
- A postconviction petitioner who expressly agrees to appointed counsel’s withdrawal may be barred by invited error from later challenging the withdrawal procedure or the motion’s sufficiency.
- The right to counsel in postconviction proceedings is statutory, and waiver is evaluated from the entire record, including the petitioner’s experience, statements, and subsequent conduct.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates that procedural default may prevent appellate review of an allegedly deficient postconviction-counsel withdrawal motion. Express agreement to withdrawal, followed by active self-representation without objection, can constitute invited error and a valid waiver of postconviction counsel.
The decision was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).