We will not disturb that decision absent an abuse of discretion. The serious issues Hirsch presents on appeal are couched in terms of purported flaws in Fritzshall's representation. Hirsch contends Fritzshall misadvised and misled him about the admissibility of evidence at trial and misrepresented the consequences of a guilty plea. Hirsch also contends Fritzshall failed to assert Hirsch's reasonable understanding of his fulfilled plea agreement, which the prosecution allegedly breached. Hirsch finally contends Fritzshall failed to prepare adequately for the sentencing hearing and labored under a potential conflict of interest.
Illinois courts agree.
In this context, the first, or performance, prong is the standard inquiry into attorney competence. The second, or prejudice prong, focuses on whether defense counsel's inadequate performance affected the outcome of the plea-bargaining process. In other words, in order to satisfy the 'prejudice' requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. The defendant must establish both attorney incompetence and prejudice in order to prevail on a Strickland claim. We cannot ignore the trial court's meticulous Rule 402 admonitions or Hirsch's own sworn statement to the judge that he pleaded guilty freely and voluntarily.