People v. Murray, 92 N.E.3d 429

Kenwaun A. Murray pled guilty to one count of residential burglary and two counts of aggravated battery after facts (hotel surveillance, a metal car jack, victims with skull fractures) linked him to an assault in a hotel room.
At the plea hearing defense counsel generally agreed with defendant’s version of events; defendant later claimed counsel told him that mere entry made him guilty of residential burglary and that he could always withdraw a plea.
Twelve days after the plea, Murray (through counsel) moved to withdraw the plea, arguing the State could not prove the “without authority” element of residential burglary because he was allegedly allowed into the room.
The circuit court sentenced Murray, then held a hearing on the motion to withdraw; Murray raised a pro se ineffective-assistance claim. The court made a preliminary inquiry but denied appointment of new counsel and denied the motion to withdraw.
Defense counsel filed three Rule 604(d) certificates; the first two referenced only the plea, the third referenced only sentencing and was filed after denial of the motion to withdraw.
The appellate court reversed the denial of appointment of new counsel for a full Krankel hearing, vacated the denial of the motion to withdraw, and remanded for new postplea proceedings due to both Krankel error and noncompliance with Rule 604(d).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by not appointing new counsel after defendant raised a pro se claim of ineffective assistance (Krankel inquiry)	Court: counsel evaluated evidence; no need to appoint new counsel because no possible neglect	Murray: counsel misinformed him that mere entry made him guilty and told him he could always withdraw plea; this misstated law and affected plea choice	Reversed: appoint new counsel and conduct a full Krankel hearing because counsel effectively conceded facts and may have provided incorrect legal advice making possible neglect evident
Whether counsel strictly complied with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) certification requirements	State: argues remand is required because certificates were deficient (concedes noncompliance)	Murray: certificates did not cover both plea and sentencing as required; third certificate was untimely	Vacated denial of motion to withdraw and remanded for new postplea proceedings due to failure of strict compliance with Rule 604(d)

People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984) (establishes procedure for resolving pro se posttrial ineffective-assistance claims)
People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68 (2003) (preliminary inquiry standard; appoint counsel if possible neglect of case shown)
People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27 (1994) (strict compliance with Rule 604(d) is mandatory; remedy is remand)
People v. Morgan, 212 Ill. 2d 148 (2004) (defines manifest error standard)
People v. Scott, 337 Ill. App. 3d 951 (2003) (limited-authority doctrine: consent to enter negated if entrant intends criminal act)
People v. Wilson, 155 Ill. 2d 374 (1993) (entry with intent to commit a crime defeats claimed authorization)