2021 IL App (3d) 190212
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- Edward Roberson was charged with home invasion, residential burglary, aggravated resisting, and unlawful possession of a controlled substance; after two trials he was convicted of all counts.
- After the second-trial verdict, Roberson (pro se) filed a motion for new trial and later a motion to vacate asserting multiple ineffective-assistance claims against trial counsel (refused to let him testify or review transcripts, failed to investigate video, declined to call witnesses, failed to review discovery, fell asleep, etc.).
- At a June 22, 2018 court appearance the trial judge asked whether Roberson objected to his attorney continuing to represent him, but did not question Roberson about the substance of his pro se ineffectiveness allegations or ask counsel to respond.
- Counsel later withdrew (due to an ARDC complaint) and new counsel was appointed but did not pursue Roberson’s earlier pro se ineffectiveness claims in the motion to reconsider sentence.
- The appellate court found the trial court’s brief June 22 exchange did not constitute an adequate preliminary Krankel inquiry and that appointing new counsel under the circumstances did not cure the defect.
- The case was remanded for the circuit court to conduct the required preliminary inquiry into Roberson’s pro se claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; other issues were not decided as a result of remand.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Roberson’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of preliminary Krankel inquiry into posttrial ineffective-assistance claims | Brief colloquy was adequate; Roberson refused to engage; thus no further inquiry needed | Court failed to ask about specific allegations and did not permit counsel to respond; inquiry inadequate | Remanded: court’s June 22 exchange was insufficient; preliminary Krankel inquiry required |
| Whether appointment of new counsel moots Krankel defect | Appointment of new counsel mooted the need for further Krankel proceedings | Appointment did not serve Krankel’s purpose because new counsel did not independently investigate or pursue the pro se claims | Rejected: mere substitution of counsel did not satisfy Krankel absent appointment to investigate the claims |
| Denial of two mistrial motions at second trial | Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying mistrials | Trial court abused discretion in denying mistrials | Not reached (posttrial Krankel inquiry required first) |
| Whether burglary conviction merges with home invasion and extended-term sentencing issues | Sentencing and merger arguments were without merit | Sentencing and merger errors required relief | Not reached (premature to address before Krankel inquiry) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (Ill. 1984) (establishes preliminary inquiry when defendant files pro se ineffective-assistance claim)
- People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68 (Ill. 2003) (explains scope of preliminary Krankel inquiry and when new counsel must be appointed)
- People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142 (Ill. 2014) (describes purpose of Krankel inquiry to create record and resolve claims)
- People v. Horman, 2018 IL App (3d) 160423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018) (court must conduct additional Krankel inquiry for later-raised claims)
- People v. Bell, 2018 IL App (4th) 151016 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018) (new counsel must independently investigate pro se ineffectiveness claims)