People v. Demus, 47 N.E.3d 596

Demus pled guilty to vehicular burglary and received two years’ probation; two months later he was arrested after a CTA parking-lot burglary and the State filed a petition to revoke probation.
At the revocation hearing Officer Bos testified he saw Demus lying in the rear of a blue minivan with stereo equipment; victims identified the equipment as theirs and identified the occupants.
The court found Bos more credible than Demus and concluded by a preponderance of the evidence that Demus violated probation.
After the revocation, Demus repeatedly told the court his trial counsel failed to subpoena an event query that, he claimed, would show Bos’s arrival time contradicted Bos’s testimony (and thus showed perjury). He asked counsel to obtain it; counsel did not.
The court allowed Demus to proceed pro se on a motion alleging Bos perjured himself; Demus questioned Bos at an evidentiary hearing but left mid-hearing and the court deemed the motion abandoned; trial counsel participated in the hearing.
The court denied a new revocation hearing and sentenced Demus to six years in prison. On appeal the court considered whether Demus adequately alleged ineffective assistance and whether the trial court followed Krankel procedures (appointment of new counsel for the claim).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Demus sufficiently raised a posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel	Demus’s claim lacked factual specificity and was no more than disagreement about counsel’s trial strategy	Demus alleged counsel refused to subpoena the event query despite repeated requests and that the document would impeach Officer Bos — specific factual basis	Demus sufficiently alleged ineffective assistance; his statements and pro se filings alerted the court to counsel’s alleged failure to obtain the event query
Whether the trial court complied with Krankel by conducting a preliminary inquiry and appointing new counsel if warranted	The State argued the court’s handling (allowing an evidentiary hearing) was proper and any error was harmless because the underlying claim was meritless	Demus argued the court should have appointed new counsel before an evidentiary exploration of his claim and that requiring him to proceed pro se deprived him of the benefit of independent counsel	The court held the trial court erred: it focused on the substance of the perjury claim instead of conducting a Krankel inquiry into counsel’s performance and allowed counsel who was accused of ineffectiveness to participate; remand for a Krankel-compliant hearing with appointment of new counsel was required

People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181 (Ill. 1984) (trial court must examine factual basis of posttrial pro se ineffective-assistance claims)
People v. Moore, 207 Ill.2d 68 (Ill. 2003) (describes preliminary inquiry procedure and when new counsel is required)
People v. Taylor, 237 Ill.2d 68 (Ill. 2010) (form of claim not controlling; oral claims can suffice to alert the court)
People v. Nitz, 143 Ill.2d 82 (Ill. 1991) (discusses harmless Krankel error when court addressed claim and evidence contradicted defendant’s representations)
People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142 (Ill. 2014) (new counsel not automatically appointed; court must first inquire into the claim)