People v. Merritt, 2017 IL App (2d) 150219

Phillip Merritt was charged in two separate 2009 armed-robbery cases; trials were consolidated in scheduling and tried in March 2011.
On the morning of trial (March 14, 2011) Merritt asked to proceed pro se and for a continuance to prepare; the court admonished him, found counsel competent, allowed standby counsel, and refused a continuance.
Merritt proceeded pro se with standby counsel assistance; he was convicted in both cases and received a 30-year sentence in each case, with the second sentence ordered consecutive to the first.
On direct appeal the court affirmed, finding the record showed the trial court considered the need to protect the public when imposing consecutive sentences.
Merritt filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging (1) denial of due process by refusing a continuance after he chose to proceed pro se, (2) error in imposing consecutive sentences (toy gun/no aggravation), and (3) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not raising these points.
The trial court summarily dismissed the petition; the appellate court affirmed, holding Merritt’s continuance claim failed (untimely pro se request) and the consecutive-sentences claim was forfeited and, in any event, supported by the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of a continuance after Merritt elected to proceed pro se violated due process	State: trial court acted within discretion; defendant’s request was untimely and a product of his own delay	Merritt: denial deprived him time to prepare after electing self‑representation, violating due process	Denial upheld: request was untimely (day of trial) and likely a delay tactic; no abuse of discretion
Whether trial court failed to find consecutive sentences necessary to protect the public	State: court’s remarks and sentencing history show protection‑of‑public finding	Merritt: consecutive sentences improper (toy gun, no aggravators) and court failed to make required finding	Claim forfeited on postconviction review; on direct appeal record shows court considered recidivism/public protection, so consecutive sentences were proper

People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113 (2009) (trial-court denial of continuance reviewed for abuse of discretion; failure to analyze relevant factors reversible)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (criminal defendant has constitutional right to self-representation)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
People v. Rasho, 398 Ill. App.3d 1035 (2010) (day‑of‑trial, untimely pro se request accompanied by request for preparation time can be denied)
People v. Jones, 213 Ill.2d 498 (2004) (postconviction claims not raised in petition are forfeited)