2019 IL App (4th) 160917
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant Julian Rhodes was convicted by a jury of delivering a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a church and sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment plus fines and fees.
- Defense counsel filed a written motion for new trial; at sentencing counsel reported that defendant had given him a handwritten motion that referenced “ineffective assistance of counsel.”
- The trial court told defendant pro se motions are typically stricken when counsel represents the defendant and asked whether he would raise the claim in a motion to reconsider; defendant said he would, but only if it would be accepted.
- The court did not request to see the handwritten motion, did not conduct a Krankel inquiry, and proceeded to deny the motion to reconsider when later filed by counsel (which contained no ineffective-assistance allegations).
- On appeal, Rhodes raised several issues; the Fourth District concluded the trial court erred by failing to conduct a Krankel inquiry into defendant’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and remanded for that limited hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court ensured jury compliance with Rule 431(b) | State: trial court complied (not argued in depth here) | Rhodes: court failed to ensure juror understanding of admonitions | Not decided (court remanded on Krankel issue only) |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument | State: closing was proper | Rhodes: prosecutor misstated law/argued improperly | Not decided (moot pending Krankel inquiry) |
| Whether trial court erred by not conducting a Krankel inquiry after a pro se ineffective-assistance allegation | State: claim not properly raised; court offered option to file motion later | Rhodes: he clearly raised ineffective-assistance pro se; court prevented filing and should have inquired | Held: Trial court erred; remand for a Krankel inquiry |
| Whether court improperly imposed a drug spinal cord injury fee | State: fee proper | Rhodes: fee improper | Not decided (remanded for Krankel inquiry may render moot) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (Ill. 1984) (establishing procedure when defendant pro se raises ineffective-assistance claim)
- People v. Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, 88 N.E.3d 732 (Ill. 2017) (clarifying that a defendant need only invoke ineffective assistance to trigger a Krankel inquiry)
- People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, 25 N.E.3d 1127 (Ill. 2014) (standard of review for adequacy of Krankel inquiry)
- People v. Bell, 2018 IL App (4th) 151016, 100 N.E.3d 177 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018) (discussing when pro se motions should be stricken and the Krankel exception)
- People v. Bates, 2018 IL App (4th) 160255, 112 N.E.3d 657 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018) (distinguishing counsel-initiated claims from defendant-initiated pro se claims)
- People v. McGath, 2017 IL App (4th) 150608, 83 N.E.3d 671 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017) (same)