2019 IL App (1st) 170329
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background:
- Defendant Alfred Downing was convicted of possession with intent to deliver after police found ~835 grams of cannabis in the vehicle where he was a passenger.
- At his PSI interview, defendant complained that trial counsel refused to let him testify, failed to call three witnesses, denied his request for new counsel, and that officers lied about his statements.
- The PSI recorded those complaints; at sentencing the State highlighted the PSI statements to argue defendant lacked remorse.
- Defendant did not repeat the complaints in court, file any posttrial motion, or otherwise bring them personally to the judge’s attention; the trial court made no inquiry and sentenced him to 7 years.
- On appeal, the central question was whether the trial court was required under People v. Krankel to conduct a preliminary inquiry when the defendant’s out-of-court complaints (in the PSI) were brought to the court’s attention in open court by the State.
- The appellate court held a Krankel inquiry was required in these circumstances, remanded for that inquiry, and permitted defendant to raise a Rule 472 challenge to monetary assessments on remand.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court must conduct a preliminary Krankel inquiry where defendant’s ineffective-assistance complaints appeared in the PSI and were cited in open court by the State | No — Krankel triggers only when defendant personally brings allegations to the court | Yes — PSI complaints originated with defendant and being raised in open court put the trial court on notice; inquiry required | Court held Krankel inquiry required because the judge was made aware in open court of defendant’s PSI complaints that originated with defendant; remanded for inquiry |
| Whether defendant may challenge a $5 Electronic Citation Fee raised for first time on appeal | State relied on Rule 472(e) procedure — movant must first file motion in trial court | Defendant argued fee was improperly assessed and raised on appeal | Court remanded and directed defendant may file a Rule 472 motion in the circuit court to seek correction |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (Ill. 1984) (established trial-court duty to inquire into pro se posttrial claims of ineffective assistance)
- People v. Ayres, 2017 IL 120071 (Ill. 2017) (a bare posttrial allegation of ineffective assistance is sufficient to trigger a Krankel inquiry)
- People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68 (Ill. 2003) (describes scope and purpose of preliminary Krankel inquiry)
- People v. Jackson, 243 Ill. App. 3d 1026 (1st Dist. 1993) (appellate counsel relaying client’s out-of-court complaints can trigger Krankel)
- People v. Harris, 352 Ill. App. 3d 63 (1st Dist. 2004) (held PSI-only complaints did not trigger Krankel; distinguished here because PSI complaints were called out in open court)
- People v. Reed, 197 Ill. App. 3d 610 (1st Dist. 1990) (prior precedent treating vague PSI/allocution remarks as insufficient; court explained Reed is limited by later Ayres)
- People v. Pecoraro, 144 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 1991) (limited application of Krankel where defendant was represented by private counsel)
- People v. Jocko, 239 Ill. 2d 87 (Ill. 2010) (Krankel inquiry not required before conviction or end of trial)