People v. Peck, 2017 IL App (4th) 160410

Police executed a search warrant at Sean Peck’s residence and found cocaine, multiple pills (some testing as 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.” The detective continued questioning, told Peck Ewing would be arrested, and after further discussion Peck admitted selling cocaine and ecstasy.
At trial an edited eight‑minute interrogation video (omitting the invocation and withdrawal portions) was admitted; Peck was convicted of two counts of possession with intent to deliver and sentenced to concurrent prison terms.
On direct appeal, this court remanded for a Krankel hearing to investigate Peck’s ineffective‑assistance claim that trial counsel failed to move to suppress his custodial statements after he requested counsel.
At the Krankel hearing, trial counsel testified she believed Peck reinitiated the interview; the trial court found counsel was not ineffective. On appeal the Fourth District reversed, concluding counsel was deficient for failing to file a suppression motion and that Peck was prejudiced; the conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly admonished Peck under Ill. S. Ct. R. 401(a) before permitting him to proceed pro se at the Krankel hearing	State conceded trial court erred on earlier Krankel handling; at this appeal, State did not contest adequacy of admonitions	Peck argued he was not properly admonished before waiving counsel for the Krankel proceeding	Court did not decide this issue (determined unnecessary because it resolved the ineffective‑assistance claim)
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress custodial statements made after Peck invoked his right to counsel	Trial court and State argued counsel reasonably concluded Peck reinitiated the conversation, so suppression motion lacked merit	Peck argued Hockaday continued interrogation after his unequivocal request for counsel (Edwards/Miranda), making any subsequent statements inadmissible; counsel should have moved to suppress	Court held counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable because police improperly continued interrogation after invocation; a suppression motion had merit and prejudice was established — conviction reversed and remanded for new trial

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes warnings and right to counsel during custodial interrogation)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (police must cease interrogation after a defendant invokes right to counsel unless the defendant initiates further communications)
Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 (presumption that an accused who has invoked counsel is unable to proceed without counsel)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑part ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
People v. Hunt, 969 N.E.2d 819 (Ill. 2012) (Miranda interrogation and Innis expansion: interrogation includes words/actions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses)
People v. Woolley, 687 N.E.2d 979 (Ill. 1997) (if police reinitiate conversation after invocation, statements presumed involuntary)
People v. Cherry, 63 N.E.3d 871 (Ill. 2016) (recent restatement of Strickland application in Illinois)