2019 IL App (3d) 180275
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Erick M. Maya was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and unlawful use of a weapon; sentenced to lengthy consecutive terms.
- During voir dire, venire member Kevin McGrath disclosed he was a Will County correctional officer and denied bias; defense did not use a peremptory to strike him and McGrath ultimately served on the jury that convicted Maya.
- Maya filed multiple pro se posttrial motions claiming ineffective assistance by defense counsel George Lenard for (a) failing to strike McGrath, and (b) failing to investigate/subpoena his mental-health records or pursue a fitness/insanity evaluation. Counsel filed and later withdrew a pro se motion; counsel also filed a motion for new trial that was denied. A PSI contradicted Maya’s claim of prior mental-health diagnoses.
- On direct appeal this court remanded for a Krankel preliminary inquiry to address Maya’s posttrial ineffective-assistance claims. On remand the court questioned counsel only briefly (on mental-health fitness) and did not ask about the jury composition; the court found no possible neglect and declined to appoint new counsel.
- On further appeal, the appellate court examined (1) whether failing to strike McGrath could show possible neglect warranting appointment of counsel under Krankel, and (2) whether counsel’s alleged failure to investigate Maya’s mental health showed possible neglect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Maya) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maya forfeited the McGrath claim by not raising it on direct appeal | Maya knew of the issue earlier and failed to raise it on first appeal, so it is forfeited | Krankel requires a preliminary inquiry; factual detail was fleshed out only on remand, so claim is not forfeited | Forfeiture argument rejected—remand and Krankel procedure can develop facts not on the original record |
| Whether counsel’s failure to strike McGrath was only trial strategy and thus not Krankel-eligible | Seating a juror after assurances of impartiality can be trial strategy protected from Krankel relief | Counsel’s refusal to strike an allegedly biased jail correctional officer who had confrontations with Maya shows possible neglect; defendant’s remonstrances were unrebutted at inquiry | Court held the trial court’s finding of no possible neglect was manifestly erroneous; remanded to appoint new counsel for full hearing on this claim |
| Whether counsel’s failure to investigate mental-health issues showed possible neglect | Counsel reasonably believed defendant was fit; PSI indicated no prior diagnosis; counsel explained discussions indicated fitness | Counsel failed to subpoena hospital records or order a psychological evaluation despite allegations of psychotic disorder and medications | Court found the trial court’s conclusion was not manifestly erroneous: no possible neglect shown as counsel testified he saw no fitness/insanity issue and PSI contradicted defendant’s claims |
| Standard for dismissing posttrial ineffective-assistance claims as trial strategy under Krankel | Trial-strategy decisions can justify denying appointment of new counsel | Trial-strategy presumption can be rebutted where counsel’s conduct is irrational or unexplained; preliminary inquiry must allow development of facts | Court: claims touching strategy are not per se barred; at preliminary inquiry defendant need only show possible neglect; here the McGrath claim warranted further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (establishing preliminary inquiry when defendant alleges posttrial ineffective assistance)
- People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68 (describing court’s duties during the Krankel preliminary inquiry)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard and presumption that counsel’s actions are strategic)
- People v. Manning, 241 Ill. 2d 319 (discussing reviewability of counsel’s decisions during voir dire and peremptory strikes)
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (holding trial before a biased jury is structural error)
- People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366 (reiterating strong presumption that counsel’s decisions are sound strategy)
- People v. Palmer, 162 Ill. 2d 465 (noting certain strategic actions are virtually unchallengeable)
- People v. Enis, 194 Ill. 2d 361 (describing strategic choices that are generally immune from ineffectiveness claims)