People v. Rogers

2026 IL App (4th) 250262 FILED NO. 4-25-0262 June 30, 2026 Carla Bender IN THE APPELLATE COURT 4th District Appellate Court, IL OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Logan County DEANDRE L. ROGERS, ) No. 19CF130 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Jonathan C. Wright, ) Judge Presiding. JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Steigmann and Justice Lannerd concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION ¶1 Defendant, Deandre L. Rogers, pleaded guilty to one count of drug-induced homicide (720 ILCS 5/9-3.3(a) (West 2018)), and in exchange, the State agreed to (1) dismiss a second count of drug-induced homicide and several other cases and (2) recommend a sentencing cap of 23 years in prison. Following a sentencing hearing, defendant was sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment, followed by 18 months of mandatory supervised release. ¶2 Thereafter, defendant filed a petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2024)). He argued his counsel provided ineffective assistance in relation to his guilty plea. After the circuit court dismissed the petition as patently without merit, this court reversed and remanded for second-stage proceedings, having concluded defendant’s petition stated “an arguable legal and factual basis for ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s failure to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.” People v. Rogers, 2023 IL App (4th) 220937-U, ¶¶ 14, 16. ¶3 On remand, defendant’s postconviction counsel eventually filed a motion to withdraw, asserting defendant’s claims were meritless, and the circuit court granted the motion. Thereafter, the court dismissed defendant’s postconviction petition on the State’s motion. Defendant appeals. We affirm. ¶4 I. BACKGROUND ¶5 A. The Charges and Guilty Plea ¶6 Defendant was indicted on two counts of drug-induced homicide in July 2019 (720 ILCS 5/9-3.3(a) (West 2018)). Subsequently, defendant agreed to plead guilty to one count of drug-induced homicide, in return for which the State would dismiss the other homicide charge and additional outstanding charges in Logan County case Nos. (1) 18-CF-163, (2) 17-TR-3383, (3) 17- TR-3306, (4) 18-TR-850, (5) 18-TR-1707, (6) 19-TR-1488, and (7) 19-TR-1902. The State also agreed to cap its sentencing recommendation at 23 years’ imprisonment. ¶7 In July 2021, at defendant’s plea hearing, defendant informed the circuit court he reviewed the document outlining the plea agreement, understood its contents, and discussed the plea agreement with his counsel, who answered all his questions. The court admonished defendant the State alleged he committed drug-induced homicide “by knowingly delivering heroin, a controlled substance, to John Beck and John Beck thereafter ingested a portion of that heroin into his body and said ingestion caused the death of John Beck.” Defendant was informed that any sentence imposed would be mandatorily consecutive to any sentences that might be imposed in any cases pending in Logan County not covered by the plea. -2- ¶8 The circuit court initially informed defendant he faced a prison sentence between 6 and 30 years, followed by 3 years of mandatory supervised release. The court then proceeded through a complete recitation of Rule 402 admonishments (Ill. S. Ct. R. 402 (eff. July 1, 2012), which defendant acknowledged he understood. Defendant raises no complaint regarding his admonishments. The court explained it was not bound by the State’s agreement to cap its recommendation and was free to sentence him to any term of years within the minimum and maximum range of sentences. Defendant acknowledged he understood. When asked, defendant denied anyone had threatened him or forced him to plead guilty and also agreed there had been no promises made to him, other than what was contained in this partially negotiated plea. Defendant then entered a plea of guilty to “Count 1, drug induced homicide, a Class X felony.” ¶9 However, after the State noted, and defense counsel acknowledged, defendant was eligible for an extended term sentence based on a prior Class X felony, the circuit court readmonished defendant as to the possible sentencing range for an extended term Class X felony. After doing so, defendant again acknowledged he understood the range of sentences possible. The court then expressly inquired whether, knowing this, “does that change your position on pleading guilty pursuant to this partially negotiated plea,” to which defendant replied, “No, sir.” The court directed the same inquiry to defendant’s counsel, who also indicated it did not change counsel’s position on the plea either. ¶ 10 The State’s factual basis was as follows: “Witnesses would testify that on May 18, 2019, this defendant, who would be identified in open court, conducted a drug transaction with John Beck. That this defendant gave John Beck heroin in exchange for $100; that thereafter John Beck used a portion of that heroin. The next morning, on May 19, 2019, John Beck was -3-  discovered deceased. That law enforcement responded to the scene, began investigation. And John Beck’s body was taken to the coroner’s office for autopsy. And thereafter an autopsy was conducted and it was discovered that John Beck died as a result of ingesting the heroin.” ¶ 11 Defendant’s counsel agreed the State could produce witnesses to testify substantially as indicated by the State’s proffer. The circuit court found defendant had entered a knowing and voluntary plea, found that there was a factual basis for the plea, and entered a judgment of conviction. During the discussion on a date for sentencing, in defendant’s presence, defendant’s counsel asked the court to clarify “whether or not the Court will accept the agreement between the State and the defendant of a cap of 23 years.” The court reminded counsel of the court’s admonishments to defendant, “where [it] indicated that the Court is not bound by the State’s agreement to cap the recommendation and can sentence within the minimum and maximum range of penalties.” ¶ 12 A presentence investigation report (PSI) was prepared that, in addition to outlining the circumstances of the offense, detailed defendant’s lengthy criminal history. The PSI indicated defendant was first arrested in Cook County as an eight-year-old minor for unlawful possession of a controlled substance. Thereafter, defendant amassed a substantial number of offenses as a juvenile, including criminal damage to property, assault, residential burglary, armed robbery, fleeing and eluding police, and theft. The PSI noted defendant violated juvenile probation several times and was committed to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice, where he “committed a plethora of violations while he was incarcerated.” The PSI indicated that, upon aging out, defendant was transferred to the adult division of the Illinois Department of Corrections. As an adult, defendant obtained additional convictions, ranging from multiple traffic offenses to such -4- felonies as armed robbery and residential burglary, for which he returned to the Illinois Department of Corrections for six years and seven years, respectively. ¶ 13 At defendant’s sentencing hearing the State asked for a sentence of 23 years. Defendant’s counsel argued for a sentence “in the range of 12 years.” The circuit court sentenced defendant to 21 years in prison. ¶ 14 B. Defendant’s Postconviction Petition ¶ 15 In May 2022, defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition pursuant to the Act. Therein, he asserted he was denied his constitutional rights to “effective assistance of counsel and Due Process of Law” based on his plea counsel’s ineffectiveness. Specifically, defendant asserted his plea counsel incorrectly informed him he “could” receive a six-year sentence if he pleaded guilty and instructed him he “had to answer ‘yes’ to the questions” posed to him by the circuit court or “he would not be able to get the 6 year plea deal.” Defendant claimed, although he told counsel he did not want to plead guilty to drug-induced homicide because he was not guilty, counsel “used scare tactics” to coerce him to do so. Defendant asserted counsel told him “he was a known drug dealer from Chicago who sold a white man a bag of heroin that he overdosed on” and “[w]hether he sold him the drugs or not, if he [went] to trial, no judge or jury would acquit him and he was sure to spend the rest of his life in prison.” According to defendant, counsel never told him “that if he went to trial he could also receive the minimum of 6 years.” Instead, counsel advised him “the only way he was going to receive a 6-year prison sentence was if [he] plead[ed] guilty to the charge of drug induced homicide and answered yes to the questions the judge asked him regarding his plea of guilt.” Defendant contended that, if counsel had not advised him he would receive a “life time in prison” by pursuing a trial and if he “knew he was not going to receive a 6 year sentence,” he would not have pleaded guilty. -5- ¶ 16 Defendant also argued counsel “did absolutely nothing” to ensure he understood “the law in relation to the facts.” Specifically, defendant noted that, although the case “hinged on the testimony of Kendra Plue,” who would testify defendant sold Beck the heroin resulting in his death, counsel did not “make certain that petitioner knew he had a constitutional right to confront” her. Nor did counsel “make certain that [defendant] knew he had a right to cross[-]examine the toxicologist, Robert Thomas,” whose toxicology report showed Beck’s death was due to the combined effects of multiple substances. Attached to the petition as exhibit No. 1 was a portion extracted from defendant’s PSI stating, “[T]he cause of John Beck’s death was attributed to the combined toxic effects of heroin, fentanyl, diphenhydramine, and methamphetamine.” Defendant further claimed counsel did not inform him he had the right to pursue a trial and to testify. Defendant contended he would not have pleaded guilty if counsel had properly informed him of his rights. ¶ 17 Contained within defendant’s affidavit attached to his petition were additional claims: (1) that upon learning his sentence, he “told his lawyer he did not agree to a 21-year sentence, *** that he wanted to withdraw the plea,” and his trial counsel failed to timely file such a motion on his behalf and (2) an assertion of actual innocence, in that “[he] did not sell John Beck any heroin. [He] did not give John Beck any heroin.” The record shows no motion to withdraw his plea was filed. ¶ 18 Based upon the foregoing, defendant contended the circuit court “should allow [him] to withdraw the plea entered, and allow him to stand trial.” ¶ 19 In August 2022, the circuit court dismissed defendant’s postconviction petition as patently without merit. However, this court reversed and remanded the matter for second-stage proceedings based our finding defendant’s petition stated “an arguable legal and factual basis for -6- ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s failure to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and the circuit court erred when it summarily dismissed defendant’s petition.” Rogers, 2023 IL App (4th) 220937-U, ¶¶ 14, 16. ¶ 20 C. Proceedings on Remand ¶ 21 On remand, the circuit court appointed the public defender to represent defendant in the postconviction proceedings, and at the status hearing on August 16, 2023, counsel said he had spoken with defendant about the issues he raised and requested additional time to amend defendant’s postconviction petition, which the court allowed. Counsel returned to court in November 2023, seeking additional time, which was allowed. ¶ 22 In January 2024, defendant’s postconviction counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. The motion was continued several times to secure defendant’s presence for the hearing. In his motion, counsel argued that, upon his review of the record, he found no meritorious issues that could be presented to the circuit court. Counsel explained defendant’s claims were meritless. To the extent defendant argued plea counsel used “scare tactics” to force him to plead guilty, the record showed defendant, in response to the court’s questioning, acknowledged no one forced him to enter a guilty plea. Counsel also argued that, to the extent plea counsel informed defendant he would receive a six-year sentence by pleading guilty, the court informed defendant of the minimum and maximum sentences he faced, repeating them after learning of the prior Class X conviction, and defendant acknowledged he understood the sentencing range. Further, although defendant claimed plea counsel failed to inform him that he could pursue a trial and cross-examine witnesses, the record established the court admonished defendant of these rights, and defendant acknowledged he understood them. Finally, as to defendant’s claim his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, postconviction counsel -7- acknowledged “[plea] counsel failed to do so” and that “defendant sufficiently alleged *** [plea] counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” for the purpose of an ineffective-assistance claim. However, counsel argued defendant could not show he suffered prejudice because none of the bases he asserted for the motion would have warranted withdrawal of his plea. Specifically, the record showed defendant admitted to the factual basis offered by the State, and the court sufficiently admonished defendant about his rights and the possible sentence he faced before he entered his guilty plea. Counsel asserted that, given his determination defendant’s claims were meritless, he was permitted to withdraw pursuant to People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192 (2004), and People v. Kuehner, 2015 IL 117695. ¶ 23 Defendant’s postconviction counsel also filed a certificate pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 651(c) (eff. July 1, 2017). Therein, counsel stated he consulted with defendant to ascertain his claims and examined the record, but he made no amendments to defendant’s pro se postconviction petition because his claims were meritless. ¶ 24 In April 2024, defendant filed a response to his postconviction counsel’s motion to withdraw. Defendant argued the circuit court lacked the authority to permit postconviction counsel to withdraw, citing People v. McKenzie, 323 Ill. App. 3d 592 (2001). Defendant also claimed counsel failed to comply with Rule 651(c), arguing he failed to sufficiently investigate his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant argued a thorough investigation of the record would have revealed plea counsel’s failure to investigate evidence relating to the toxicology report showing Beck “died from the combined toxic effects [of] heroin, fentanyl, diphenhydramine, and methamphetamine.” Defendant also maintained witness statements were not adequately considered as possibly exculpatory, contending perhaps other witnesses could have been found or an expert toxicology witness obtained to explain the presence of other drugs found in Beck’s -8- system or to create the inference others had given Beck the drugs that killed him. Defendant placed a great deal of emphasis on exhibit No. 1, the excerpt from his PSI, which he contends implies Beck had taken other drugs not provided by defendant, which may have caused his death, and he contended plea counsel was defective for not investigating this further. Defendant asserted that, because postconviction counsel failed to investigate his “claims of ineffective assistance of [plea] counsel” in violation of Rule 651(c), the motion to withdraw “should be denied as to the def.s [sic] claim of ineffective assistance not having any merit.” ¶ 25 On April 30, 2024, the circuit court heard the motion to withdraw. Postconviction counsel and defendant indicated they intended to stand on their respective filings, and when the court asked the State whether it took any position on the motion to withdraw, the State declined, stating, “No position to the underlying matter. Just a comment on some of the case law [defendant] provided. He cited [McKenzie] as authority for why [postconviction counsel] should not be allowed to withdraw. I read that case. It’s a Third District case, 2001. However, subsequent to that case, the Fourth District declined to follow that ruling in [People v. Greer, 341 Ill. App. 3d 906 (2003), aff’d, 212 Ill. 2d 192 (2004)]. And so I do believe that [in] the Fourth District, a Motion to Withdraw is allowed by [postconviction counsel]. That’s my only comment on this matter.” ¶ 26 Thereafter, the circuit court granted postconviction counsel’s motion to withdraw. The court noted, after reviewing the Rule 651(c) certificate, this court’s order following defendant’s initial appeal, and relevant authorities, that it found postconviction counsel’s motion to withdraw properly addressed each claim raised in defendant’s postconviction petition and -9- explained why the claims were meritless. The court found that counsel ascertained no new claims after consulting with defendant and noted defendant raised no new issues. ¶ 27 On June 3, 2024, the State filed a motion to dismiss defendant’s postconviction petition, arguing defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel failed because the record refuted his claims counsel forced him to plead guilty and the circuit court properly admonished defendant of his trial rights and the sentencing range he faced by pleading guilty. Additionally, the State argued defendant was not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to file a motion to withdraw because defendant could not establish such a motion would have had merit. The State highlighted that, beyond defendant’s failure to present a viable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant could not raise a claim of actual innocence because he presented no new, material, noncumulative evidence to clearly and convincingly demonstrate a trial would probably result in acquittal. ¶ 28 On August 21, 2024, the circuit court held a hearing on the State’s motion to dismiss, at which the State reiterated the arguments raised in its written motion. Defendant raised no additional argument. The court granted the State’s motion to dismiss, finding the record rebutted defendant’s claims that counsel forced him to plead guilty, failed to inform him of his trial rights, and told him he would receive a six-year sentence. The court further found defendant’s claim he did not sell heroin to Beck did not amount to new evidence sufficient to support a claim of actual innocence, as that information would have been known to defendant at the time of his plea. ¶ 29 This appeal followed. ¶ 30 II. ANALYSIS ¶ 31 On appeal, defendant argues (1) the State improperly participated at the hearing on - 10 - defendant’s postconviction counsel’s motion to withdraw, (2) his postconviction counsel was improperly allowed to withdraw, and (3) the circuit court erred in dismissing his postconviction petition. ¶ 32 The Act “provides a mechanism for criminal defendants to challenge their convictions or sentences based on a substantial violation of their rights under the federal or state constitutions.” People v. Morris, 236 Ill. 2d 345, 354 (2010). Postconviction proceedings are “not a continuation of, or an appeal from, the original case” but a “collateral attack upon the prior conviction” that provides only “limited review of constitutional claims not presented at trial.” People v. Harris, 224 Ill. 2d 115, 124 (2007). “A postconviction petitioner is entitled only to the level of assistance granted by the Act, which this court has determined to be a reasonable level of assistance [citation], which is less than that afforded by the federal and state constitutions at trial ***.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Frey, 2024 IL 128644, ¶ 23. ¶ 33 The Act establishes a three-stage process for adjudicating a postconviction petition. People v. English, 2013 IL 112890, ¶ 23. At the first stage, the circuit court must determine whether the pro se petition is “frivolous or is patently without merit.” 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(2) (West 2024). During the second stage, the stage at which defendant’s petition was dismissed, “the court may appoint counsel for an indigent defendant, who may amend the petition as necessary, and the State may file a motion to dismiss or an answer to the petition.” People v. Cotto, 2016 IL 119006, ¶ 27. A petition may be dismissed at the second stage “only when the allegations in the petition, liberally construed in light of the trial record, fail to make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation.” People v. Hall, 217 Ill. 2d 324, 334 (2005). At the second stage, all factual allegations not rebutted by the record are accepted as true. Id. We review the dismissal of a postconviction petition de novo. People v. Gharrett, 2022 IL App (4th) 210349, ¶ 30. - 11 - ¶ 34 A. The State’s Participation at the Hearing on the Motion to Withdraw ¶ 35 Defendant first argues the circuit court violated his right to due process by permitting the State to participate at the hearing on his postconviction counsel’s motion to withdraw. Specifically, defendant argues, without citation of authority, because second-stage postconviction proceedings are “non-adversarial” until the State files a responsive pleading, that the court bore sole responsibility for evaluating the motion to withdraw and it was improper for the State to provide input at the hearing on the motion. He asserts the court allowed the State to participate at the hearing without first providing him notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the State’s arguments. The State responds that nothing prohibited its participation at the hearing on counsel’s motion to withdraw and, in any event, nothing in the State’s comments was adversarial. The State simply pointed out there is a split between districts and later Fourth District case law permits postconviction counsel to seek a withdrawal—an indisputable statement of the law, regardless of how the court decided the motion. ¶ 36 Defendant relies on Greer, Kuehner, and both decisions in People v. Frey, 2017 IL 120150, and 2024 IL 128644, as support for his position the State is not permitted to participate in the evaluation of a motion by postconviction counsel to withdraw at second-stage postconviction proceedings. Unfortunately for defendant, none of those cases stand for the proposition for which they are cited. In Greer, our supreme court said, where the record demonstrates a defendant’s postconviction allegations are frivolous and patently without merit, the Act does not prevent the withdrawal of the defendant’s counsel. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d at 211-12. Greer has since been cited as authority to support permitting the withdrawal of postconviction counsel. See People v. Urzua, 2023 IL 127789, ¶¶ 41-42. Coincidentally, the Illinois Supreme Court in Urzua approved the procedure followed by the circuit court here—allowing counsel to withdraw, requiring the State - 12 - to file a responsive pleading, and setting the defendant’s petition for a second-stage hearing on the merits. Id. ¶ 42. In Kuehner, the supreme court clarified that, when postconviction counsel files a motion to withdraw during second-stage proceedings, counsel must provide some explanation as to why all the claims raised in the defendant’s pro se postconviction petition are frivolous or patently without merit. Kuehner, 2015 IL 117695, ¶¶ 21, 27. In Frey, the supreme court further clarified counsel’s obligation to explain why each claim in the defendant’s postconviction petition is frivolous or without merit when seeking to withdraw. The supreme court said counsel’s obligation applies whether a petition advanced to the second stage because the circuit court failed to take action on the petition within 90 days (see 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(b) (West 2024)) or because the circuit court found the petition had potential merit. Frey, 2024 IL 128644, ¶ 27. ¶ 37 In relying on these cases, defendant confuses the procedure surrounding a motion to withdraw by counsel at the second stage of a postconviction petition and a Krankel hearing. See People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984). More importantly, he does so by arguing a negative inference—because none of the cases cited indicated the State had any involvement in the assessments of the motions to withdraw as counsel, that must mean the State cannot be involved. Defendant claims that this absence of the State’s involvement in those cases suggests second-stage postconviction proceedings must be construed as nonadversarial until the State files a response to the defendant’s postconviction petition, such that the State’s participation until such a filing “is neither contemplated nor appropriate.” From this, defendant concludes, because postconviction counsel’s motion to withdraw was filed while the proceedings were still “non-adversarial,” the State was not permitted to provide its input as to the motion. ¶ 38 Defendant’s reliance on the foregoing cases is misplaced. None of them state second-stage postconviction proceedings are nonadversarial until the State files a responsive - 13 - pleading. Nor do they say the State is prohibited from participating at a hearing on a motion to withdraw after a postconviction petition has been advanced to the second stage. Indeed, the cases make no pronouncement whatsoever about the propriety of the State’s participation at a hearing on such a motion because there was no such issue in any of them. See Greer, 212 Ill. 2d at 211- 12; Kuehner, 2015 IL 117695, ¶¶ 24, 27; Frey, 2024 IL 128644, ¶ 35 (discussing postconviction counsel’s responsibilities pertaining to a motion to withdraw); cf. People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 38 (explicitly concluding a preliminary hearing pursuant to Krankel “should operate as a neutral and nonadversarial proceeding,” such that the State should not be permitted to take an adversarial role against a pro se defendant at that stage). ¶ 39 Accordingly, we reject defendant’s invitation to interpret Greer, Kuehner, and Frey as establishing an affirmative prohibition against the State’s involvement at a hearing on postconviction counsel’s motion to withdraw. ¶ 40 In any event, here, the State did not address the merits of counsel’s motion, and in fact, the State expressly noted it took “[n]o position” on the matter. Instead, the substance of the State’s input was merely to clarify case law surrounding a motion by postconviction counsel to withdraw. That very point was raised by postconviction counsel in his motion to withdraw and supported with citations of authority establishing that a motion to withdraw is permitted where counsel determines a defendant’s postconviction claims are frivolous or meritless. See Kuehner, 2015 IL 117695, ¶ 21; Greer, 212 Ill. 2d at 209, 211-12. Defendant, in his response to the motion to withdraw, argued that a circuit court has no authority to allow counsel to withdraw from a meritless postconviction petition. Kuehner and Greer tell us otherwise. Thus, defendant was not confronted with any argument that was not already raised in his postconviction counsel’s motion and addressed in his response to that motion. We therefore reject defendant’s claim he was - 14 - deprived of notice and an opportunity to respond. ¶ 41 Accordingly, we conclude defendant was not deprived of his right to due process as a result of the State’s minimal participation at the hearing on postconviction counsel’s motion to withdraw. ¶ 42 B. Counsel’s Compliance With Rule 651(c) ¶ 43 Defendant argues the circuit court erred in allowing his postconviction counsel to withdraw because counsel neither meaningfully consulted with him about his alleged constitutional violations nor adequately reviewed the record, as required by Rule 651(c). The State responds counsel complied with Rule 651(c). Defendant also argues the court erred in granting counsel’s motion to withdraw because counsel failed to explain why every claim in his postconviction petition was frivolous or patently without merit. However, because our analysis for this argument and defendant’s argument concerning the dismissal of his postconviction petition are substantially related, we address them in a separate section below. ¶ 44 In second-stage postconviction proceedings, there is no constitutional right to the assistance of counsel. Frey, 2024 IL 128644, ¶ 23. As we noted above, the Act provides a statutory right to a “reasonable level” of assistance, which is less than that afforded by the federal and state constitutions at trial. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.; see 725 ILCS 5/122-4 (West 2024). ¶ 45 To ensure a postconviction petitioner receives such reasonable assistance, Rule 651(c) imposes specific duties on postconviction counsel. People v. Suarez, 224 Ill. 2d 37, 42 (2007). The rule provides, inter alia, the following: “The record filed in that court shall contain a showing, which may be made by the certificate of petitioner’s attorney, that the attorney has consulted with petitioner by phone, mail, electronic means or in person to ascertain his or her - 15 -  contentions of deprivation of constitutional rights, has examined the record of the proceedings at the trial, and has made any amendments to the petitions filed pro se that are necessary for an adequate presentation of petitioner’s contentions.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 651(c) (eff. July 1, 2017). Postconviction counsel is required to investigate and properly present only the claims raised by the defendant. Frey, 2024 IL 128644, ¶ 24. The filing of a certificate pursuant to Rule 651(c) creates a rebuttable presumption that the defendant received reasonable assistance of counsel during the postconviction proceedings. Id. “The defendant bears the burden of overcoming that presumption by showing that postconviction counsel did not substantially comply with the strictures of the rule.” People v. Addison, 2023 IL 127119, ¶ 21. ¶ 46 If postconviction counsel determines none of the issues raised in the petition are meritorious, he or she may seek to withdraw as counsel. People v. Pace, 386 Ill. App. 3d 1056, 1062 (2008). However, counsel’s motion to withdraw must set forth why each of the defendant’s pro se claims lack merit. Frey, 2024 IL 128664, ¶ 27. We review both the scope of an attorney’s duties under Rule 651(c) and the attorney’s compliance with that rule de novo. Id. ¶ 21. ¶ 47 Although defendant concedes counsel filed a facially compliant Rule 651(c) certificate averring he consulted with defendant about his contentions of constitutional violations and examined the record, he contends the record rebuts counsel’s claims. Defendant does not deny counsel consulted with him about his claims and avoids any reference to consultations he may have had. In his response to counsel’s motion to withdraw, defendant says counsel “never once attempted to investigate def.s [sic] claims of ineffective assistance of counsel” and improperly relied solely upon the “cold record” to assess his claims. Besides failing to identify with any degree of specificity how counsel was deficient, these arguments are refuted by the record. - 16 - ¶ 48 Here, counsel filed a Rule 651(c) certificate asserting he consulted with defendant to ascertain his claims and examined the record, which created a presumption that counsel did so. Id. ¶ 24. Defendant’s argument that the record rebuts this presumption is unpersuasive. Regarding counsel’s efforts to consult with defendant, the record shows counsel explicitly told the circuit court at the August 16, 2023, status hearing that he “spoke with [his] client today regarding the issues that he has.” Notably, defendant was present at that hearing and did not contest counsel’s claim. Later, at the hearing on counsel’s motion to withdraw on April 30, 2024, defendant was present in person, and when given the opportunity to speak on the motion or his response, defendant elected to stand on his written response. Defendant neither claimed nor asserted in his response that counsel had not conferred with him about the claims raised in his pro se postconviction petition and does not do so on appeal. Accordingly, nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that counsel consulted with defendant. Contrary to defendant’s claim, the record affirms that counsel did so. ¶ 49 As to postconviction counsel’s responsibility to examine the record, defendant claims on appeal that counsel “ignore[ed]” plea counsel’s failure to file a motion to withdraw defendant’s guilty plea despite defendant’s request to do so. Defendant asserts counsel’s failure to “analyze that factual premise” demonstrates he did not actually review the record, as required under Rule 651(c). The record, however, flatly contradicts defendant’s claim counsel failed to address plea counsel’s inaction. Postconviction counsel’s motion explicitly acknowledged that, although defendant asked his plea counsel to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, “counsel failed to do so” and defendant “sufficiently alleged *** [plea] counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Counsel then assessed whether defendant was prejudiced as a result of his counsel’s deficient performance and concluded defendant was not. He found there - 17 - was no basis upon which a motion to withdraw defendant’s guilty plea could have been granted, even if filed, since the circuit court explained the charge and possible sentence defendant faced and admonished him in substantial compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402(a) (eff. July 1, 2012). See People v. Rogers, 2021 IL 126163, ¶ 32 (counsel cannot be considered ineffective for failing to make or pursue what would have been a meritless motion or objection). Thus, contrary to defendant’s claim, the record indicates counsel did analyze the factual basis for defendant’s claim and found it unsupported by the record. ¶ 50 In light of the foregoing, we conclude defendant failed to rebut the presumption postconviction counsel complied with Rule 651(c). ¶ 51 C. The Issues Raised in Defendant’s Postconviction Petition ¶ 52 Finally, defendant raises two arguments touching upon the merits of the claims raised in his postconviction petition. We address these arguments together. First, he asserts the circuit court erroneously granted postconviction counsel’s motion to withdraw because the motion failed to explain why every claim in his petition was frivolous or patently without merit. Second, defendant argues, because his claims were meritorious, in that they made a substantial showing of a constitutional violation, the court erroneously dismissed his postconviction petition. The State responds that counsel’s withdrawal was proper because the motion addressed every claim raised in defendant’s petition and dismissal of the petition was appropriate because those claims were meritless. ¶ 53 When appointed postconviction counsel seeks to withdraw, “counsel owes the trial court at least some explanation as to why, despite its superficial virtue, the pro se petition is in fact frivolous or patently without merit, and counsel owes this explanation with respect to each of [the] defendant’s pro se claims.” (Emphasis in original.) Kuehner, 2015 IL 117695, ¶ 21. This - 18 - requirement exists whether the pro se postconviction petition advanced to the second stage because of judicial inaction or because the claims were found to have potential merit. Frey, 2024 IL 128644, ¶ 27. A motion to withdraw at the second stage “does not ask the trial court to conduct its first-stage assessment a second time but rather seeks to bring to the trial court’s attention information that was not apparent on the face of the pro se petition at the time such assessment was made.” Kuehner, 2015 IL 117695, ¶ 21. ¶ 54 In turn, if the State determines during second-stage postconviction proceedings the petition lacks merit, the State may file a motion to dismiss. People v. Pingelton, 2022 IL 127680, ¶ 33. “In deciding a motion to dismiss, the circuit court must determine whether the petition and accompanying documentation make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation.” Id. ¶ 34. As we have already noted, we review the second-stage dismissal of a postconviction petition de novo, and in assessing the propriety of the dismissal, we liberally construe the allegation