People v. Cluster
2018 IL App (3d) 160202
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty in 10‑CF‑896 to unlawful possession (open plea) and was later sentenced to six years; he was admonished about postplea motion/appeal prerequisites.
- While awaiting sentencing in that case, defendant faced additional felony charges in 12‑CF‑410 and 12‑CF‑246 and later entered negotiated pleas in those matters.
- Defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging his trial attorney, Hendricks, promised to appeal the six‑year sentence in 10‑CF‑896 and failed to perfect an appeal, and that Hendricks did not file a motion to withdraw a plea or appeal in 12‑CF‑410 after requests.
- Appointed postconviction counsel (Snyder) filed a supplemental petition but did not call a potential witness (Colvin); defendant later filed pro se claims that Snyder provided unreasonable assistance of postconviction counsel.
- The circuit court denied the postconviction petition and refused to consider defendant’s pro se filings while represented; defendant moved to reconsider, claiming Snyder’s unreasonable assistance, and appealed after the denial.
- The appellate court considered whether a Krankel‑style preliminary inquiry is required when a defendant raises a pro se claim that postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance at the third stage.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Custer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Krankel‑style preliminary inquiry is required when defendant alleges pro se that postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance at the third stage | No authority extends Krankel to postconviction representation; Krankel applies to trial/posttrial counsel only | Krankel principles should apply because appointment of conflict‑free counsel and development of a record are necessary to evaluate the claim | Court held a Krankel‑like preliminary inquiry is required; reversed and remanded for the court to conduct the inquiry and appoint conflict‑free counsel if needed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181 (establishes preliminary inquiry into pro se ineffective‑assistance claims)
- People v. Moore, 207 Ill.2d 68 (describes scope and procedure of the Krankel preliminary inquiry)
- People v. Lawton, 212 Ill.2d 285 (attorney cannot be expected to argue his own ineffectiveness)
- People v. Hardin, 217 Ill.2d 289 (postconviction counsel must be conflict‑free and provide reasonable assistance)
- People v. Guest, 166 Ill.2d 381 (postconviction counsel assistance is governed by statute and not a constitutional right)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (no constitutional right to counsel in collateral postconviction proceedings)