People v. King
2017 IL App (1st) 142297
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Lavona King was convicted after a bench trial of home invasion, residential burglary, aggravated battery, and aggravated unlawful restraint arising from a February 2012 incident at her mother’s home; sentences were concurrent (8, 5, 3, and 2 years).
- Prosecution evidence: defendant entered the basement apartment, assaulted sister Sage O’Harrow with a wrench, threatened to kill her, and was restrained by Sage until police arrived; glass on an interior door was broken.
- Defendant’s testimony: she had a key, went to see her children, denied wielding the wrench or having it under her control, and said she intended to visit her children.
- At sentencing defendant complained (in allocution) that a witness wasn’t called and that counsel did not pull Sage’s medical/criminal background (including alleged heroin charges), but she never expressly stated counsel was ineffective.
- On appeal King argued the trial court failed to conduct a People v. Krankel inquiry into her pro se ineffective-assistance claims and that certain convictions violated the one-act, one-crime rule. The State argued the statements were ambiguous and trial-strategy related; it conceded one conviction should be vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (King) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to conduct a Krankel inquiry into pro se claims of ineffective assistance | No; defendant's remarks were ambiguous and did not clearly assert ineffective assistance—some comments were trial strategy or allocution | Trial court should have inquired because defendant complained counsel ignored a witness and failed to impeach Sage with prior conviction/medication/heroin use | No Krankel inquiry required: defendant never made a clear claim of ineffective assistance sufficient to trigger inquiry (Ayres distinguished) |
| Whether convictions for home invasion and residential burglary violate the one-act, one-crime rule | Multiple acts were present (entry + use of force); convictions can stand | Both convictions arise from the same entry and must not both stand | Convictions for both upheld: distinct physical acts (entry and use of force) and residential burglary is not a lesser-included offense of home invasion |
| Whether aggravated battery and aggravated unlawful restraint violate one-act, one-crime rule | Aggravated unlawful restraint was subsumed by aggravated battery | Both convictions cannot stand if based on same act | Court vacated aggravated unlawful restraint conviction (State conceded it was subsumed) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181 (trial court should inquire into pro se ineffective-assistance claims)
- People v. Ayres, 2017 IL 120071 (a clear claim of ineffective assistance, oral or written, triggers the Krankel duty)
- People v. Miller, 238 Ill.2d 161 (two-step one-act, one-crime analysis: (1) single vs multiple physical acts; (2) whether one offense is a lesser included offense)
- People v. McLaurin, 184 Ill.2d 58 (discussed but distinguished on whether home invasion and residential burglary derive from same physical act)
- People v. Nunez, 236 Ill.2d 488 (one-act, one-crime/plain-error framework when claim not raised below)