People v. Hale
2013 IL 113140
Ill.2013Background
- Defendant Hale, charged with two counts of attempt (first degree murder), one count of aggravated battery with a firearm, and one count of aggravated discharge of a firearm toward an occupied vehicle, was convicted after trial.
- At sentencing, the court held that consecutive sentencing under 5-8-4 of the Code was mandatory for two attempt counts and imposed consecutive terms.
- Defendant’s trial counsel allegedly advised that concurrent sentencing was likely and did not inform that consecutive terms were mandatory if convicted of both attempts.
- Post-trial, Hale pursued pro se and appointed-counsel claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations, arguing he would have accepted a 15-year plea but for misadvice.
- Appellate court reversed, holding trial counsel’s failure to inform about mandatory consecutive sentences constituted prejudice under Strickland; circuit court judgment was affirmed.
- This Court granted the State’s appeal to address whether prejudice was shown under Strickland and whether Curry/Frye/Cooper dictate the prejudice standard
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hale was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged misadvice about consecutive sentences. | Hale argues misadvice caused rejection of the 15-year offer. | Hale contends counsel’s failure to warn about mandatory consecutive terms led to trial rejection of the plea. | No prejudice; no reasonable probability Hale would have accepted the 15-year offer. |
| What standard governs prejudice when plea negotiations are involved post-Frye/Cooper. | Appellate court’s Strickland-based prejudice applies. | Frye/Cooper require showing Hale would have accepted the plea; Curry’s framework insufficient. | Frye/Cooper controls; prejudice shown only if Hale would have accepted the plea absent deficient advice. |
| Whether self-serving, subjective testimony alone suffices to prove prejudice. | Defendant’s claim supported by his own testimony. | Record lacks independent confirmation that advice caused rejection. | Subjective testimony alone is insufficient; must show independent corroboration of impact of misadvice. |
| Whether the record supports a conclusion that defendant’s rejection was based on other factors, not counsel's advice. | Advising that consecutive sentences were possible undermines knowing rejection. | Defendant sought trial; belief in acquittal influenced decision regardless of advice. | Record indicates other factors predominated; prejudice not shown. |
| Whether the circuit court properly applied Krankel Moore framework in evaluating ineffectiveness claims. | Krankel/Moore standard required appointment of new counsel for possibly neglected claims. | Moore framework not satisfied to show prejudice. | Krankel/Moore considerations do not alter the lack of prejudice under Strickland. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Curry, 178 Ill. 2d 509 (Ill. 1997) (right to be reasonably informed of direct consequences in plea negotiations; prejudice standard under Curry)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. 2012) (prejudice requires showing defendant would have accepted plea absent deficient advice)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (U.S. 2012) (prejudice requires showing a more favorable outcome if trial had not occurred; additional factors for prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (plea-bargaining counsel effectiveness standard applied to plea process)
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (Ill. 1984) (limits for initial post-trial claims of ineffective assistance; Krankel procedure framework)
- People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68 (Ill. 2003) (limited remand for Krankel-type inquiry; appointment of counsel if claims viable)
- People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504 (Ill. 1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance review)
- Moore v. Wagener, 196 Ill. 2d 269 (Ill. 2001) (recognizes review of plea-related deficiencies under Strickland framework)
- Echols v. People, 382 Ill. App. 3d 309 (Ill. App. 2008) (discusses prejudice and evidentiary considerations in ineffective assistance)