People v. Morgan
2017 IL App (2d) 150463
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Morgan was indicted on multiple weapon-related charges and proceeded to jury trial after rejecting a plea offer the State said had been revoked.
- On the day of trial defense counsel raised a bona fide doubt about Morgan’s fitness; Dr. Latham evaluated him and found him fit but documented Morgan’s complaints that counsel “does not really give a f**k,” had met infrequently, and that Morgan wanted to accept earlier plea offers counsel allegedly foreclosed.
- At the fitness hearing Morgan made a pro se claim of ineffective assistance, saying counsel did not have his best interests and failed to obtain a lower sentence; counsel acknowledged a breakdown in the attorney–client relationship.
- The trial court asked Morgan a few brief questions, denied his motion to discharge counsel based largely on in-court observations of counsel’s performance, and proceeded to trial.
- Morgan was convicted of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon and sentenced to seven years; he appealed, arguing the trial court failed to adequately inquire into his pro se ineffective-assistance claim under Krankel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court adequately inquired into Morgan's pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel | The court's limited inquiry and its observations of counsel were sufficient; the claim lacked merit | The court failed to investigate factual allegations from the fitness report (e.g., plea-offer discussions, counsel's failure to listen) and thus did not perform the required Krankel inquiry | Remanded for a limited Krankel inquiry; if allegations show possible neglect, appoint new counsel; if claim lacks merit or is strategy, deny it |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (Ill. 1984) (trial court must examine factual basis of pro se ineffective-assistance claims)
- People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68 (Ill. 2003) (trial court may question counsel and defendant and may rely on its knowledge of counsel's performance in some cases)
- People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142 (Ill. 2014) (summarizing Krankel framework)
- People v. Jocko, 239 Ill. 2d 87 (Ill. 2010) (pretrial Krankel inquiry not required unless prejudice is presumed)
- People v. Vargas, 409 Ill. App. 3d 790 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) (claims based on matters outside the record require inquiry because a judge's in-court observations may not reveal de hors-the-record allegations)