2023 IL App (5th) 210085
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background
- Jenkins was convicted of first-degree murder in 2011 and this court remanded for a proper preliminary Krankel inquiry into his pro se posttrial ineffective-assistance claims.
- After an earlier defective Krankel hearing, a new preliminary inquiry and full evidentiary hearing were held before Judge Stephen McGlynn, who treated the proceedings as an extended post-trial/new-trial-type evidentiary hearing.
- At that hearing, percipient witness Arthur Reed recanted his trial testimony, admitting he lied after contact with Assistant State’s Attorney Joe Christ and received a jail-related benefit; Reed and other witnesses testified about inducement and coercion.
- Judge McGlynn found the State procured perjured testimony and that trial counsel was ineffective, concluded he could not have confidence in the verdict, and granted a new trial.
- The State moved to reconsider; the case passed through several recusal assignments and was reassigned to Judge Hitzemann, who concluded McGlynn exceeded the proper scope of the Krankel proceedings by granting a new trial on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct and reversed the new-trial order.
- The appellate court held Judge Hitzemann erred as a matter of law in excluding consideration of the State's procurement of perjured testimony discovered in a properly conducted Krankel evidentiary hearing, reversed his reconsideration order, and remanded for the new trial McGlynn ordered.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Jenkins's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Krankel evidentiary hearing may uncover non-Krankel errors (e.g., prosecutorial procurement of perjured testimony) and support a new trial | Krankel is for ineffective-assistance claims; prosecutorial-misconduct claims belong in postconviction and were not timely raised | The evidentiary hearing was an extension of post-trial/new-trial proceedings; evidence of procured perjury was properly considered and can support a new trial | The court held such evidence may be considered in a properly conducted Krankel evidentiary hearing and can justify a new trial |
| Whether a successor judge may reconsider and reverse a prior judge's interlocutory new-trial order | Successor judge has authority to reconsider earlier rulings and may reverse if erroneous | Prior judge’s findings—based on live testimony and credibility—are entitled to deference; successor must exercise restraint | Successor may reconsider but may not reverse based on an incorrect legal premise; here reversal was an abuse of discretion because it relied on erroneous legal reasoning |
| Standard of review / deference to trial judge's factual findings after live testimony | State argued McGlynn’s credibility findings could be reassessed | Jenkins argued McGlynn saw witnesses and credibility findings deserve deference absent clear error | Appellate court emphasized deference to McGlynn’s factual findings and that the successor judge erred by discounting them without proper basis |
| Whether statutory/new-trial timing (725 ILCS 5/116-1(a)) or procedural posture barred relief now | State argued statutory timing and specificity requirements meant the perjury claim was improperly raised here | Jenkins argued the Krankel proceedings were an extension of post-trial/new-trial review and section 116-1(a) did not preclude relief | Court rejected State’s contention that Jenkins had to wait for postconviction relief and allowed consideration now |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181 (preliminary Krankel inquiry required where defendant raises pro se posttrial ineffective-assistance claims)
- People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112 (explains Krankel procedure and appointment of counsel for credible neglect allegations)
- Balciunas v. Duff, 94 Ill.2d 176 (successor judges must exercise restraint when reversing discretionary rulings of prior judges)
- People v. Gonzalez, 184 Ill.2d 402 (trial judge who heard testimony is best positioned to assess witness credibility)
- People v. Brown, 2018 IL App (4th) 160288 (successor judge authority to correct prior judge’s orders but caution when reversing discretionary rulings)
- People v. Porter-Boens, 2013 IL App (1st) 111074 (a circuit court abuses discretion when its ruling rests on an incorrect view of the law)