Right to counsel; People v Anderson; Assertion of the right to counsel; Patterson v Illinois; Right against self-incrimination; People v Wyngaard; Waiver; People v New; Ineffective assistance of counsel

The court held defendant was not entitled to resentencing based on her allegations that her rights to counsel and against self-incrimination were violated. She pled guilty to attempted fourth-degree fleeing and eluding and was sentenced to 21 months’ probation, and 21 days of jail time, to be served on weekends. The terms of her probation required that she “not use or possess alcohol or intoxicants and that she comply with alcohol and drug testing requirements as directed by her probation officer.” Shortly thereafter, she violated her probation by failing to comply with alcohol testing requirements and failing to report to serve her weekend jail sanction. Due to her actions at the arraignment on her probation violation, she was “found to have violated her probation in other ways as well.” She ultimately pled guilty to most of the allegations, and the trial court found her guilty of the other violations. It sentenced her to 365 days in jail. It then denied her motion to correct her allegedly invalid sentence and for resentencing. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that she was entitled to resentencing based on violations of her Sixth and Fifth Amendment rights, finding that neither her right to counsel nor her right against self-incrimination was violated. It noted she “did not assert her right to counsel at her arraignment on the probation violations.” And she “did not petition for the appointment of counsel with respect to her probation violations until after her arraignment and counsel was not officially appointed to represent defendant until two days after the arraignment.” In addition, at the arraignment on her probation violation, the trial court did not compel her “to respond to any question posed to her, let alone any question where the answers may incriminate her.” Moreover, by pleading guilty she “waived constitutional violations alleged to have occurred before the plea.” Finally, because her constitutional arguments failed, there was no basis for her “claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to interview [her] and review [an] allegedly altered medical document prior to her submitting [it] to the trial court, and in not motioning the [trial] court to exclude the document or objecting to its use because counsel had not looked at it before she submitted it to the court.” Affirmed.