People v. Merritt
2017 IL App (2d) 150219
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Phillip Merritt was convicted of armed robbery in two consolidated 2009 cases and received two consecutive 30-year sentences; he proceeded largely pro se at trial after seeking to discharge counsel on the morning of trial.
- On the morning of trial Merritt presented a handwritten motion to proceed pro se and asked for time to prepare; the trial court warned that a last‑minute bid to go pro se appeared to be a delay tactic, allowed standby counsel, and denied a continuance.
- Trial proceeded with Merritt representing himself (with standby counsel assisting); he was convicted and sentenced; the trial court explained it imposed consecutive sentences after discussing Merritt’s recidivism and risk of reoffending.
- Merritt filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging (1) due‑process violation from denial of a continuance after electing to proceed pro se, and (2) improper imposition of consecutive sentences without the required finding protecting the public; he also alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not raising these points.
- The trial court summarily dismissed the postconviction petition; the appellate court affirmed, holding Merritt’s request to proceed pro se was untimely and his consecutive‑sentence claim was forfeited and, in any event, unsupported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Merritt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denying a continuance after Merritt chose to proceed pro se on trial day violated due process | Denial proper because request was untimely and appeared to be a delay tactic; court permissibly refused extra prep time | Denied meaningful opportunity to prepare after electing self‑representation; denial prejudiced his defense | Court affirmed: request untimely; defendant not diligent; no abuse of discretion in refusing continuance when pro se request came on trial day |
| Whether trial court failed to make the required finding that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public | Consecutive sentences were supported by court’s discussion of recidivism and community danger | Trial court did not expressly find consecutive sentences necessary to protect public; sentence therefore improper | Issue forfeited (not raised below); alternatively, court’s remarks on defendant’s likelihood to reoffend show the requisite finding, so claim lacks merit |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113 (trial court abused discretion in mechanically denying continuance without considering pertinent factors)
- People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1 (first‑stage postconviction petition standard; gist of constitutional claim required)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (right to self‑representation is fundamental but not absolute)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective‑assistance standard)
- People v. Rasho, 398 Ill. App. 3d 1035 (day‑of‑trial request to proceed pro se that seeks additional preparation time is untimely and may be denied)
- People v. Silagy, 101 Ill. 2d 147 (discussing Faretta and the limits on self‑representation)