People v. Mourning
2016 IL App (4th) 140270
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Defendant Matthew Mourning was convicted (Dec 2013 jury) of two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and later sentenced to consecutive terms of 8 and 9 years.
- Defendant had retained private counsel (Glenn Fuller) after initial appointment of the public defender.
- Prior to sentencing defendant filed a pro se letter asserting ineffective assistance by Fuller, stating he was "firing" Fuller and requesting a public defender; complaints included failure to mention right to a bench trial, failure to present certain evidence, and failure to impeach a witness.
- At a hearing the court allowed one week for defendant to seek new private counsel; Fuller informed the court defendant lacked funds to hire new counsel and sought appointment of the public defender.
- The trial court denied the pro se claims without questioning defendant or counsel substantively, concluding the complaints were matters of trial strategy and meritless on their face.
- On appeal the Fourth District held Krankel applies where a privately represented defendant requests new counsel and says he cannot afford private replacement, and remanded for a proper preliminary Krankel inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Krankel preliminary inquiry is required when defendant is represented by private counsel but requests new counsel and cannot afford private replacement | State: Krankel does not apply to privately retained counsel; trial court need not conduct inquiry | Mourning: Krankel applies because he requested new counsel and informed court he could not afford private counsel | Court: Krankel applies where defendant (1) requests new counsel and (2) cannot afford new private counsel; trial court must conduct initial inquiry |
| Whether the trial court conducted a sufficient preliminary Krankel inquiry here | State: Court felt allegations were trial strategy and could be rejected on their face | Mourning: Court failed to question him about factual basis (e.g., bench-trial claim) and did not inquire into other specific allegations | Court: The inquiry was insufficient; remand for a proper preliminary Krankel hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (Ill. 1984) (establishes procedure when defendant makes pro se claim of ineffective assistance)
- People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68 (Ill. 2003) (trial court may interrogate counsel/defendant or rely on court's knowledge to evaluate pro se ineffective-assistance claims)
- People v. Pecoraro, 144 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 1991) (discusses limits on replacing privately retained counsel where defendant did not request appointed counsel)
- People v. Shaw, 351 Ill. App. 3d 1087 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (Krankel not required where defendant did not inform court he wanted new or appointed counsel)
- People v. Johnson, 227 Ill. App. 3d 800 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (distinguishes Pecoraro; Krankel may apply when privately represented defendant requests new counsel)