People v. Gonzalez
2023 IL App (5th) 220266-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2023Background
- Defendant Gina Gonzalez’s original first-degree murder conviction and 50-year sentence were overturned on appeal and the case remanded for further proceedings.
- After remand, Gonzalez, represented by appointed counsel (Lynch and Thomas), agreed to a negotiated plea to first-degree murder for 25 years; the court accepted a factual basis describing an altercation on Dec. 19, 2011, and medical testimony attributing the victim’s death to blunt force craniocerebral injuries.
- Gonzalez filed pro se and counseled motions to withdraw her guilty plea alleging involuntariness/coercion, ineffective assistance of counsel, discovery and investigative failures, prosecutorial/police misconduct, and actual innocence.
- At Gonzalez’s request the Rule 604(d) hearing was held via Zoom; she proceeded pro se while three prior attorneys testified and the court questioned both counsel and the defendant about the claims.
- The trial court denied the motion in full, finding the factual basis sufficient, no proof of prosecutorial or police misconduct, no viable discovery or suppression issues, and no ineffective assistance that would justify withdrawal; the court also deemed the plea knowing and voluntary.
- On appeal Gonzalez argued the court conducted a Krankel-style inquiry in place of a Rule 604(d) hearing and infringed her right to self-representation; the appellate court affirmed, holding the court’s questioning of counsel was a proper inquiry and the denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 604(d) hearing was properly conducted | Court complied with Rule 604(d); allowed defendant to proceed pro se and heard her claims | Court conducted a Krankel inquiry instead of a Rule 604(d) hearing and curtailed her right to self-representation | Held: Hearing complied with Rule 604(d); defendant was allowed to proceed pro se and present claims |
| Whether Krankel-style questioning of counsel infringed right to self-representation | Court’s questioning of counsel to explore ineffective-assistance claims was proper and necessary | Court controlled presentation, examined witnesses, and appeared non-neutral, limiting her ability to confront/cross-examine | Held: Krankel-type inquiries were appropriate; defendant could ask questions through the court and was not denied rights |
| Whether the plea was involuntary or coerced | Plea was knowing and voluntary; defendant was admonished and agreed to negotiated sentence | Plea resulted from coercion, fear for safety in jail, and being forced by counsel | Held: Evidence showed plea was voluntary; no credible proof coercion altered plea decision |
| Whether counsel’s performance or other defects justified withdrawal (ineffective assistance, discovery failures, prosecutorial/police misconduct, actual innocence) | No showing of prejudice or meritorious claims; counsel investigated and advised; discovery available; no proven misconduct | Counsel failed to investigate multiple scenes, warrants, medical issues, and withheld evidence; asserted actual innocence | Held: Court found no merit to these claims, counsel’s actions reasonable, and no manifest injustice warranting withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984) (trial court must inquire into pro se claims of ineffective assistance)
- People v. Johnson, 2019 IL 122956 (Rule 604(d) procedures govern post-plea motions to withdraw)
- People v. Donelson, 2013 IL 113603 (plea bargaining is integral and encouraged when properly administered)
- People v. Fuller, 205 Ill. 2d 308 (guilty plea must be made voluntarily and intelligently)
- People v. Burge, 2021 IL 125642 (defendant does not have automatic right to withdraw plea; must show manifest injustice)
- People v. Hughes, 2012 IL 112817 (withdrawal appropriate for plea entered on misapprehension or misrepresentations)
- People v. Davis, 145 Ill. 2d 240 (defendant bears burden to show circumstances justified mistaken impression at plea)
- People v. Morreale, 412 Ill. 528 (historical authority on plea withdrawal for misapprehension/misrepresentation)
- People v. Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d 507 (trial court’s denial of plea-withdrawal motion reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- People v. Ayres, 2017 IL 120071 (Krankel inquiry permits questioning of counsel and defendant to assess claims)
- People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68 (scope of trial court’s duty regarding posttrial ineffective-assistance claims)
- People v. Nelson, 47 Ill. 2d 570 (right of self-representation is as basic as right to counsel)