The Illinois Appellate Court recently ruled in the case of People v. Wachter, affirming the dismissal of Marc J. Wachter's postconviction petition. The court's decision, filed on June 23, 2026, affects Wachter, who was previously convicted of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child. The ruling highlights the complexities of legal representation and the rights of defendants in postconviction proceedings.
Wachter's case began in 2009 when he was indicted on multiple charges, including five counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and seven counts of sexual exploitation of a child. He ultimately pleaded guilty to one count and received a ten-year prison sentence, which he was to serve consecutively to another sentence in a different case. After his conviction, Wachter did not file an appeal or attempt to withdraw his guilty plea.
In October 2021, Wachter filed two nearly identical postconviction petitions, one in De Kalb County and another in Kendall County. The court advanced his petition to the second stage of proceedings, which allowed him to have counsel appointed. Charles Criswell was initially appointed, but due to a conflict, Andrew Nickel took over as his attorney. However, Wachter became dissatisfied with Nickel's representation and sought to terminate his counsel.
On May 2, 2024, during a hearing, Wachter expressed his desire to proceed without an attorney, stating he had terminated Nickel's services. Postconviction counsel filed a motion for discharge, asserting that he had reviewed Wachter's claims and found them without merit. The court granted both the motion for discharge and Wachter's request to represent himself.
Following this, Wachter continued with his pro se petition, but the State moved to dismiss it. The court ultimately dismissed Wachter's petition on June 26, 2025, leading to his appeal.
In the appeal, Wachter argued that the circuit court erred in allowing his postconviction counsel to withdraw without adequately evaluating each of his claims. He claimed that counsel's performance was unreasonable because it relied on prior rulings that dismissed similar claims. The State countered that Wachter had invited the error by insisting on representing himself, which negated his argument regarding counsel's performance.
Justice Jorgensen delivered the court's judgment, with Justices Kennedy and Hutchinson concurring. The court ruled that Wachter's insistence on proceeding pro se indicated that he invited the error he later claimed on appeal. The court noted that under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, defendants have the right to raise claims regarding violations of their constitutional rights, but they also have the right to choose how to proceed with their cases.
The court explained that if a defendant chooses to proceed pro se, they must do so knowingly and intelligently. In Wachter's case, he consistently expressed his desire to represent himself, which led to the court granting his motion to proceed without counsel. The court emphasized that allowing Wachter to complain about counsel's discharge after he actively sought it would contradict fair legal practices.
In its analysis, the court cited previous rulings that established the standards for postconviction counsel's performance. The court noted that while counsel is required to provide reasonable assistance, Wachter's own actions led to the situation he later challenged. The court concluded that the invited-error doctrine applied, meaning Wachter could not claim that the court erred in granting counsel's motion for discharge.
The court ultimately affirmed the judgment of the circuit court of De Kalb County, maintaining that Wachter's appeal lacked merit due to his own choices throughout the legal process.
This ruling has implications for defendants in similar situations, as it reinforces the importance of understanding the consequences of choosing to represent oneself. It also highlights the responsibilities of postconviction counsel and the standards they must meet in their representation.
Looking ahead, Wachter's options for further appeal may be limited. The court's decision is final unless a higher court, such as the Illinois Supreme Court, agrees to hear the case. There are no indications in the court filing of any related cases pending.