People v. Smith

Summary

The court held that Rule 651(c) requires compliance by appointed postconviction counsel who shapes the petitioner's pro se claims, but does not require every later-appointed attorney at the second stage to repeat those duties or file a new certificate. Because prior counsel had filed a valid certificate, creating a rebuttable presumption of reasonable assistance, and successor counsel's role was limited to arguing the State's dismissal motion, no remand was required. The court affirmed the appellate court's judgment.