Background
Marc Wachter pleaded guilty in De Kalb County to predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, consecutive to a Kendall County sentence. He did not move to withdraw his plea or appeal. In October 2021, he mailed nearly identical postconviction petitions to both counties. The De Kalb petition advanced to second-stage proceedings, and appointed counsel was twice substituted before Andrew Nickel was representing him.
At a May 2, 2024 hearing, Wachter informed the court he had fired Nickel by email and did not want another attorney. Nickel simultaneously moved for discharge — a motion that did not individually address each of Wachter’s postconviction claims but instead relied on this court’s prior ruling in a companion Kendall County appeal, which had affirmed summary dismissal of nearly identical claims. Wachter thereafter filed his own written motion to proceed pro se, explicitly stating he agreed with counsel’s discharge motion. On July 11, 2024, the court granted both motions simultaneously.
Wachter then litigated his petition pro se; the State moved to dismiss, and the circuit court dismissed the petition on June 26, 2025. On appeal, Wachter argued that postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance by failing to individually evaluate each of his claims in the discharge motion, as required under People v. Kuehner, 2015 IL 117695.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed, declining to reach the merits of whether counsel’s discharge motion was substantively deficient under Kuehner. The court held that the invited-error doctrine was dispositive: Wachter had repeatedly and affirmatively demanded his attorney’s termination — by email before the May 2 hearing, orally at the hearing itself, and in a written motion filed independently — and expressly agreed with counsel’s motion for discharge. His active participation in the very outcome he now challenges on appeal estops him from complaining about it.
The court emphasized that Wachter’s desire to proceed pro se predated and prompted counsel’s motion for discharge, rather than arising in response to it. Because Wachter requested and agreed to the precise procedural course he later challenged, the invited-error doctrine — a form of estoppel — applied. A party who actively directs proceedings in a particular direction cannot later claim on appeal that those proceedings were in error.
The court further noted that this outcome does not conflict with Kuehner‘s requirement of automatic reversal for a faulty withdrawal motion, because procedural default is properly addressed before the merits. With invited error established, Kuehner and its remedy were simply not implicated.
Key Takeaways
- A postconviction defendant who fires his attorney, agrees with counsel’s motion for discharge, and independently seeks pro se status cannot challenge the adequacy of counsel’s discharge motion on appeal — the invited-error doctrine bars the claim.
- The invited-error doctrine applies in collateral (postconviction) proceedings and operates as estoppel, not mere waiver, when a defendant actively participates in directing the procedural course later challenged.
- Kuehner‘s requirement that a withdrawal motion individually address the frivolousness of each claim — and its automatic-reversal remedy — is not reached when invited error is found, because procedural default is addressed first and is dispositive.
- A Rule 651(c) certificate filed late (here, during the pendency of the appeal) was made part of the appellate record by court order, underscoring that the timing of compliance certificates can be litigated at the appellate level.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the interplay between the stringent Kuehner standard for postconviction withdrawal motions and the invited-error doctrine in Illinois. Defense practitioners should be aware that a client’s insistent, documented demand to proceed pro se — particularly when the client also affirmatively supports counsel’s discharge motion — can forfeit Sixth Amendment and statutory-counsel arguments that would otherwise compel reversal under Kuehner.
For the State and courts managing postconviction dockets, the case confirms that procedural default doctrines remain fully available in collateral proceedings and can resolve appeals without reaching the merits of counsel-performance claims, even where the underlying Kuehner issue might otherwise be close. Courts should carefully document the sequence and independence of a defendant’s pro se demands to preserve the invited-error record.