2018 IL App (2d) 160225
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant Paul E. Jindra was convicted after a bench trial of two counts of disorderly conduct and one count of assault arising from an incident involving a village animal catcher and one of defendant’s cats.
- At trial a defense subpoenaed witness, Brissa Cuthbertson, failed to appear on the continued trial date; she had appeared on the original date and received a reminder for the new date.
- Defense counsel (APD Travis Lutz) did not request a continuance when Cuthbertson failed to appear and the witness was not called or referenced in testimony.
- After sentencing, defendant filed a four-sentence pro se “Motion (To Reconsider)” stating the key witness did not appear nor was her written statement submitted, and naming his public defender.
- Defense counsel later filed a formal motion for new trial (not mentioning Cuthbertson); the court denied the new-trial motion. Defendant claimed the pro se motion should have triggered a Krankel inquiry into ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to conduct a preliminary Krankel inquiry into a pro se ineffective-assistance claim | The pro se motion did not clearly assert ineffective assistance; it merely noted a missing witness and did not express dissatisfaction with counsel | The pro se motion and subsequent statements raised counsel’s failure to secure/submit a key witness and thus should trigger a Krankel inquiry | Court held no Krankel inquiry was required because defendant did not make a clear claim of ineffective assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (establishes duty to inquire into pro se claims of ineffective assistance)
- People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68 (describes appointment of new counsel where pro se allegations show possible neglect)
- People v. Taylor, 237 Ill. 2d 68 (pro se statements that are ambiguous or rambling do not necessarily trigger Krankel inquiry)
- People v. Ayres, 2017 IL 120071 (a clear claim of ineffective assistance, oral or written, is sufficient to trigger a Krankel inquiry)
- People v. Peacock, 359 Ill. App. 3d 326 (Krankel inquiry required where defendant expressly accused counsel of failing to subpoena witnesses and ineffective representation)
- People v. Nicholls, 71 Ill. 2d 166 (remitted costs authority cited by appellate court)