2012 IL App (2d) 100921
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Sherrianne Remsik-Miller was convicted at a bench trial of solicitation of murder for hire and sentenced to 22 years.
- She filed posttrial motions; defense counsel did not adopt her pro se motion, which sought a new trial based on witnesses/new evidence.
- During a hearing on the pro se motion, defendant stated that counsel did not represent her to his fullest ability during trial.
- The trial court denied the posttrial motions and did not conduct a Krankel inquiry into the claim of ineffective assistance at that time.
- Defendant later filed a pro se motion for reconsideration of sentence; at a hearing she reiterates concerns about counsel’s representation and requests that the court address the issue.
- The appellate court remanded to allow a limited Krankel-type preliminary examination to determine the factual basis of the ineffectiveness claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does defendant's pro se statement trigger Krankel inquiry? | State: statement relates to trial strategy; not necessarily ineffectiveness. | Remsik-Miller's remark clearly alleges ineffective representation. | Triggered preliminary inquiry into the factual basis of the ineffectiveness claim. |
| Scope of remand and possible outcomes after preliminary examination | If relates back to witnesses at trial, may deny without further inquiry. | If broader deficiencies exist, the court must investigate them. | Remanded for limited preliminary examination; if claim relates to the prior argument, may deny; otherwise, proceed with inquiry. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181 (1984) (establishes the discharge of Krankel inquiry when pro se claims arise)
- People v. Taylor, 237 Ill.2d 68 (2010) (clarifies when sentencing remarks may trigger Krankel)
- People v. Pence, 387 Ill.App.3d 989 (2009) (requires examination of factual basis for ineffectiveness claims)
- People v. Moore, 207 Ill.2d 68 (2003) (trial court must examine factual basis of pro se ineffectiveness claims)
- People v. Serio, 357 Ill.App.3d 806 (2005) (remand for Krankel preliminary examination when necessary)
- People v. Bolton, 382 Ill.App.3d 714 (2008) (bare ineffectiveness claim may warrant some inquiry)
- People v. Ward, 371 Ill.App.3d 382 (2007) (insufficient specificity to invoke Krankel without inquiry)
- People v. Radford, 359 Ill.App.3d 411 (2005) (ex parte or vague claims do not automatically trigger Krankel)
- People v. Johnson, 159 Ill.2d 97 (1994) (discusses thresholds for triggering preliminary inquiry)
- People v. Bobo, 375 Ill.App.3d 966 (2007) (trial judge must discuss and review ineffectiveness claims when raised)
- People v. Ford, 368 Ill.App.3d 271 (2006) (court evaluates whether allegations of ineffectiveness have color)