People v. Murray, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 679

Defendant Kenwaun A. Murray pled guilty to one count of residential burglary and two counts of aggravated battery based on surveillance and witness statements showing he entered a hotel room carrying a metal car jack and victims suffered skull fractures.
Twelve days after pleading, defendant filed a counseled motion to withdraw his plea, arguing the State could not prove an element of residential burglary — that his entry was "without authority."
At a later hearing defendant asserted counsel had misinformed him about the law (telling him mere presence made him guilty and that pleas could always be withdrawn), claiming ineffective assistance; counsel largely agreed with defendant’s factual account but denied promising plea withdrawal.
The trial court conducted a brief inquiry, denied appointment of new counsel to pursue the ineffective-assistance claim, and denied the motion to withdraw the plea; sentencing had been imposed before the full hearing.
Defense counsel filed three Rule 604(d) certificates, but they split coverage between plea and sentencing (first two covered plea only; third covered sentencing only and was filed late).
On appeal the appellate court reversed the trial court’s refusal to appoint new counsel for a full Krankel hearing, vacated the denial of the motion to withdraw, and remanded for new postplea proceedings due to both the ineffective-assistance claim and Rule 604(d) noncompliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by not appointing new counsel to pursue defendant’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance under Krankel	The court: counsel evaluated evidence and gave a professional opinion; defendant’s claim did not show possible neglect	Murray: counsel misinformed him about the law (authorization irrelevant) and about ability to withdraw plea, amounting to possible neglect	Reversed: preliminary inquiry was inadequate; counsel’s admitted agreement with defendant’s facts made possible neglect evident; remand for appointment of new counsel and a full Krankel hearing
Whether counsel complied with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) certification requirements	State: concedes certificates were noncompliant and agrees remand is required	Murray: certificates failed to strictly comply (plea vs. sentencing not both covered; timing defective)	Vacated and remanded: strict compliance lacking; remand for new postplea proceedings required

People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181 (procedure for addressing pro se claims of ineffective assistance of counsel)
People v. Moore, 207 Ill.2d 68 (preliminary Krankel inquiry standard)
People v. Morgan, 212 Ill.2d 148 (definition of "manifest error")
People v. Janes, 158 Ill.2d 27 (strict compliance required for Rule 604(d) certificates; remedy is remand)
People v. Wilson, 155 Ill.2d 374 (limited-authority doctrine negating otherwise authorized entry)
People v. Scott, 337 Ill. App.3d 951 (consent to enter negated when entry is for criminal purpose)