People v. Peck, 79 N.E.3d 232

In Feb 2011 police executed a warrant at Sean Peck’s residence and found cocaine, 69 pills (17 later tested as MDMA/ecstasy), a digital scale, razor/screwdriver with white residue, and sandwich bags. Peck and his girlfriend Pershoun Ewing were present.
At the police station, Detective Hockaday read Miranda warnings; Peck immediately said, “I want an attorney.” Hockaday continued questioning, referenced arresting Ewing and fingerprint evidence, and Peck later admitted selling cocaine and ecstasy after about 1 hour 25 minutes of interrogation.
At trial (Dec 2012) Peck refused to attend; an edited interrogation video (which omitted his invocation of counsel and withdrawal) was shown. Jury convicted Peck of possession with intent to deliver ecstasy and cocaine; other counts were dismissed. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 20 and 10 years.
Peck filed pro se claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress his post-invocation statements. On initial appeal the appellate court ordered a Krankel inquiry; after a Krankel hearing the trial court concluded counsel was not ineffective. Peck appealed again.
The appellate court (4th Dist.) reviewed whether counsel was deficient for not filing a suppression motion and whether Peck was properly admonished before waiving counsel at the Krankel hearing; the court resolved the case on the ineffectiveness/suppression issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly admonished Peck before allowing him to proceed pro se at the Krankel hearing	State did not contest admissibility of Krankel waiver procedure	Peck argued Rule 401(a) admonitions were insufficient before he waived counsel	Court declined to decide this issue (resolved on different ground)
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress Peck’s custodial statements after he invoked his right to counsel	State argued counsel reasonably concluded Peck reinitiated conversation, so suppression motion lacked merit	Peck argued he unequivocally invoked counsel and detective’s continuing interrogation (threat to “lock up” girlfriend) violated Edwards/Miranda, so counsel should have moved to suppress	Court held counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial; confession should have been suppressible, reversed and remanded for new trial

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes custodial-warning requirements and right to counsel)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (police must cease interrogation after defendant invokes counsel unless defendant initiates further communication)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (Miranda’s definition of interrogation includes words or actions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)
Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 (once right to counsel invoked, further interrogation about other offenses is barred)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)