People v. Robinson
93 N.E.3d 573
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- On Jan. 14, 2010 defendant Robinson was arrested after the victim, Eugene Witherspoon, found him in the victim’s apartment; a physical altercation occurred and Robinson bit off part of Witherspoon’s lower lip. Robinson was convicted after a bench trial of residential burglary and aggravated battery.
- After conviction Robinson filed a pro se posttrial motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (Krankel motion). The trial court conducted a preliminary Krankel inquiry and denied the motion.
- On direct appeal this court remanded for a new preliminary Krankel hearing because the State’s participation had transformed the original inquiry into an adversarial proceeding. The court otherwise affirmed convictions and modified sentencing/fees in part.
- A different trial judge held a new preliminary Krankel inquiry, again denied appointment of new counsel, and Robinson appealed that denial and raised additional challenges to the fines-and-fees order.
- This court affirms the denial of appointment of new counsel (finding no showing of possible neglect requiring second-stage Krankel proceedings) but corrects the fines-and-fees order: vacating improperly imposed violent-crime-victim fines and applying presentence credit to certain fines, leaving $285 due.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Robinson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not appointing new counsel after the second preliminary Krankel inquiry | The Krankel inquiry was properly conducted; defendant’s allegations were meritless or strategic and counsel’s explanations were reasonable | Trial counsel neglected the case (failed to look for or secure testimony from “Wanda,” failed to interview/arresting officers, failed to pursue suppression and medical witnesses), showing possible neglect that required appointment of new counsel | Denied: court found defendant’s claims conclusory or strategic; counsel investigated reasonably given lack of information about Wanda and tactical bases for choices; no showing of possible neglect requiring appointment of new counsel |
| Whether fines and fees must be further corrected on remand | N/A (State agreed with corrections) | Trial court on remand improperly imposed $20 and $100 violent-crime-victim fines and failed to apply presentence $5/day credit to certain fines (state police operations and court systems fees) | Trial court’s fines order corrected: vacate the $20 and $100 violent-crime-victim fines (statutory and ex post facto issues) and apply presentence credit to fines; total now owed = $285 |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance claims)
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984) (procedures for handling pro se ineffective-assistance claims)
- People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68 (Krankel standards: appoint new counsel when claims show possible neglect)
- People v. Chapman, 194 Ill. 2d 186 (discusses Krankel procedures)
- People v. Johnson, 159 Ill. 2d 97 (Krankel progeny on preliminary inquiry)
- People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504 (adoption of Strickland in Illinois)
- People v. Jamison, 229 Ill. 2d 184 (interpretation of Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act provision "no other fine is imposed")
- People v. Jones, 223 Ill. 2d 569 (distinguishing fines vs. fees for presentence credit purposes)