2023 IL App (4th) 210621
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background
- Defendant (then 16) was charged as an accomplice in a 2015 robbery in which one victim died and another was shot; he pleaded guilty on February 24, 2020 to nonfirearm first‑degree felony murder (accountability) under a negotiated plea for the statutory minimum 20‑year term.
- A factual basis was recited at plea: defendant wore a mask and had a BB gun; a codefendant fired a .22 and the victim died.
- The trial court admonished defendant under Rule 605(c) and entered sentence on February 28, 2020.
- On March 3, 2020 defendant filed a pro se motion to reconsider sentence within 30 days but did not file the statutory contemporaneous notice of motion; that motion sat in the file for over a year.
- In August 2021 newly appointed counsel amended/converted the pro se pleading into a motion to withdraw the guilty plea, alleging coercion, involuntariness, insufficient evidence under accountability, excessive sentence, and oblique/informal complaints about plea counsel’s performance (including failure to advise of a pending statutory change).
- The trial court denied the motion (finding the plea knowingly and voluntarily entered and no coercion); defendant appealed. The appellate court held it had jurisdiction despite the missing notice and declined to remand for a Krankel inquiry, affirming the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People/State) | Defendant's Argument (Cook) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate jurisdiction exists given defendant’s failure to file a notice of motion with his timely pro se motion to reconsider sentence | The missing concurrent notice of motion rendered the postsentencing motion untimely and deprived the appellate court of jurisdiction | The motion to reconsider was filed within 30 days so the defect (no notice) is not jurisdictional; appeal is timely after denial of amended motion | The court has jurisdiction: filing the written motion within 30 days is the jurisdictional act; failure to file the notice is not jurisdictional though it remains a required step and relevant to due‑diligence review |
| Whether the pre‑2009 cases requiring both motion and notice within 30 days still control | Those older cases require both to be filed within 30 days | The 2009 statutory revision changed the operative language so only the filing of the motion within 30 days is the timeliness trigger | The statute was amended; the earlier cases relied on a prior statutory text and do not control the present wording |
| Whether counsel’s written amended motion (filed by appointed counsel) triggered Krankel (duty to inquire into ineffective assistance) | No Krankel triggered because the posttrial motion was filed by counsel and contained no clear pro se ineffective‑assistance claim | Defense argues the amended motion raised counsel‑related complaints and should trigger Krankel | Krankel not triggered by pleadings filed by counsel; Krankel protects pro se posttrial ineffective‑assistance claims and is not automatically required when counsel files the motion |
| Whether defendant’s oral statements at the motion hearing triggered a Krankel inquiry | Defendant’s oral remarks were not a clear claim of ineffective assistance and were vague/subject to other interpretations | Defendant contends his testimony that he felt coerced, that counsel failed to advise about a pending statute, and that “nobody helped” him sufficiently alleged ineffective assistance | Court: Ayres requires a clear claim; defendant’s statements were vague, contradicted by the record (case was trial‑ready the plea day), and referenced a statutory change not yet in effect for his interrogation—thus no Krankel inquiry required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181 (Ill. 1984) (establishes trial‑court duty to inquire into pro se claims of ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Ayres, 2017 IL 120071 (Ill. 2017) (defendant must make a clear claim of ineffective assistance, orally or in writing, to trigger a Krankel inquiry)
- People v. Moore, 207 Ill.2d 68 (Ill. 2003) (trial court need not appoint new counsel when claim lacks merit or concerns trial strategy)
- People v. Thomas, 2017 IL App (4th) 150815 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017) (implicit or ambiguous complaints do not trigger Krankel)
- People v. Kibbons, 2016 IL App (3d) 150090 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016) (a timely but technically imperfect postjudgment motion can toll appeal deadlines)