People v. Black, 953 N.E.2d 958

defendant Rodney E. Black was charged in Saline County with multiple drug offenses (delivery and possession) on May 23–24, 2006.
Before the preliminary hearing, Black requested legal materials and indicated he represented himself; the court noted self-representation in the docket.
At the June 13, 2006 preliminary hearing, the court granted counsel and later invited Black to reconsider representation; the court appointed counsel after a dialogue.
The court did not admonish Black in open court about the right to counsel as required by Rule 401(a) prior to the preliminary hearing.
Black was convicted by jury on all counts; the appellate court previously reversed and remanded for considering double jeopardy and sufficiency in light of the counsel-admonition issue.
On reconsideration, the court ultimately reverses the conviction due to the Rule 401(a) admonition failure and remands for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to admonish at the preliminary hearing violated Rule 401(a).	State argues no prejudice given awareness; relies on substantial compliance theory.	Black asserts lack of proper Rule 401 admonitions deprived him of a knowing waiver and counsel.	Reversal required; failure to admonish violated Rule 401(a) and plain error rule.

People v. Bolden, 59 Ill. App. 3d 32 (1978 Ill. App.) (failure to properly admonish at preliminary hearing requires reversal)
People v. Vernon, 396 Ill. App. 3d 145 (2009 Ill. App.) (plain-error review of Rule 401 admonitions; right to counsel at critical stages)
People v. Jiles, 364 Ill. App. 3d 320 (2006 Ill. App.) (plain-error framework for right-to-counsel violations at pretrial stages)
People v. Stoops, 313 Ill. App. 3d 269 (2000 Ill. App.) (counsel presence at pretrial proceedings and its impact on warnings)
People v. Koch, 232 Ill. App. 3d 923 (1992 Ill. App.) (substantial compliance with Rule 401; multiple factors for adequacy of admonitions)