The State first points out that the jury heard evidence that the officers were at the location of defendant's arrest because they had been informed, by a citizen complaint, that narcotics were being sold from a particular address. Courts in Illinois have noted that presence in an area where drug trafficking is common may support an inference that defendant intended to distribute drugs. White, 221 Ill.2d at 20–21, 302 Ill.Dec. 614, 849 N.E.2d 406 (noting that “[d]efendant was stopped in a high-crime area known for its drug activity,” and police were familiar with at least five apartments in which illegal drug sales were ongoing); People v. Williams, 358 Ill.App.3d 1098, 1104, 295 Ill.Dec. 528, 833 N.E.2d 10 (2005) (noting that “the police observed defendant walking down the street in the middle of the night in a ‘high drug-traffic area’ ”). Much more telling evidence, of course, is testimony regarding what defendant was or was not doing in the drug-trafficking area.

This is unlike cases where police officers testified as experts as to the packaging, cost, and typical personal usage of controlled substances. See People v. White, 221 Ill. 2d 1, 17-18 (2006), abrogated on other grounds, People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530 (2006); Ballard, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 535; Beverly, 278 Ill. App. 3d at 796; People v. Williams, 358 Ill. App. 3d 1098, 1103 (2005); People v. Jones, 215 Ill. App. 3d 652, 654 (1991). In fact, in Robinson, the supreme court found that 2.2 grams of PCP and 2.8 grams of cocaine, by themselves, were indicative of personal use. Robinson, 167 Ill. 2d at 413.

A motion to reconsider sentence is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding, for which a defendant is entitled to counsel. People v. Bailey, 364 Ill. App. 3d 404, 846 N.E.2d 147 (2006); People v. Williams, 358 Ill. App. 3d 1098, 833 N.E.2d 10 (2005); People v. Brasseaux, 254 Ill. App. 3d 283, 660 N.E.2d 1321 (1996). In the vast majority of cases, defense counsel has a duty to consult with the defendant during all critical stages of the proceedings.

See People v. Diaz, 192 Ill.2d 211, 225 (2000) (applying motion to reconsider clause of Rule 604(d) to open plea cases); see also Ill. S.Ct. R. 605(b) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023). As such, a motion to reconsider sentence is considered a "critical stage" of the proceedings and the right to counsel attaches. See People v. Williams, 358 Ill.App.3d 1098, 1105 (2005) (citing People v. Brasseaux, 254 Ill.App.3d 283, 288 (1996)).

The sixth amendment provides a defendant the right to assistance of counsel during all critical stages of the prosecution. People v. Williams, 358 Ill.App.3d 1098, 1104 (2005). A critical stage is a "stage of a criminal proceeding where substantial rights of a criminal accused may be affected."

While a motion to reconsider sentence is subsequent to the verdict, Illinois courts have found that a hearing on a motion to reconsider sentence is a critical stage of the criminal proceedings since the substantial rights of a defendant may be affected. See People v. Owens, 384 Ill.App.3d 670, 671 (2008); People v. Williams, 358 Ill.App.3d 1098, 1105 (2005); People v. Brasseaux, 254 Ill.App.3d 283, 288 (1996).

People v. Young, 153 Ill.2d 383, 402 (1992); U.S. Const., amend. VI. Illinois courts have recognized that the filing of a postsentence motion is a critical stage. People v. Burnett, 385 Ill.App.3d 610, 619 (2008) (finding that the resolution of a motion to reconsider sentence "is a critical stage because legal rights on appeal-the right to challenge the sentence-can be lost or limited."); People v. Williams, 358 Ill.App.3d 1098, 1105 (2005) ("Because defendant was required to file a postsentencing motion to preserve any sentencing issues for appeal, this was a critical stage of the criminal proceedings against him."). ¶ 37 Defendant argues that counsel "effectively withdrew" from representation prior to the filing of a motion to reconsider sentence.

¶ 44 The cases defendant relies on to support his argument are distinguishable from the situation here. In People v. Williams, 358 Ill. App. 3d 1098, 1105, 833 N.E.2d 10, 16 (2005), People v. Brasseaux, 254 Ill. App. 3d 283, 286, 660 N.E.2d 1321, 1323 (1996), and Palmer, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 1155, 889 N.E.2d at 248, the defendants in those cases requested counsel after they were sentenced. Further, this is not a situation like in Vernon, 396 Ill. App. 3d at 145, 919 N.E.2d at 969, where the defendant was not advised of his right to counsel before he represented himself.

Because filing a motion to reconsider sentence is a prerequisite to raising sentencing issues on appeal, it is considered a critical stage of the criminal proceedings at which a defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel. People v. Williams, 358 Ill. App. 3d 1098, 1105, 833 N.E.2d 10, 16 (2005); People v. Brasseaux, 254 Ill. App. 3d 283, 288, 660 N.E.2d 1321, 1324-25 (1996). ¶ 19 To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) counsel's deficient performance prejudiced defendant.

But refusing to reappoint his old attorney, he says, would violate the mandate and deny him his right to counsel at critical stages of the proceedings. See, e.g., People v. Abdullah, 336 Ill. App. 3d 940, 949 (2002) (motion for new trial is critical stage, with right to counsel); People v. Williams, 358 Ill. App. 3d 1098, 1104-05 (2005) (same for sentencing).¶ 29 Defendant is wrong on both fronts.