People v. Skillom
2017 IL App (2d) 150681
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Markie L. Skillom was charged with multiple offenses and pleaded guilty on August 6, 2012 to aggravated robbery (Class 1) but was admonished he would be sentenced as a Class X offender due to two prior convictions.
- Ten days later he moved to withdraw his plea, asserting he was unaware the plea would carry Class X (nonprobationable) sentencing; defense counsel’s effectiveness was implicated.
- The trial court held hearings (including after this court’s remand), allowing defense counsel to question Skillom and permitting State cross-examination during the Krankel-style inquiry. The court denied the motion to withdraw.
- At sentencing the court concluded the prior convictions made Skillom Class X eligible and imposed a 12-year sentence plus fees, fines, and costs.
- On appeal Skillom argued the trial court erred by not appointing new counsel for his ineffective-assistance claim and that he was entitled to $5/day credit for 566 days in presentencing custody against certain fines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not appointing new counsel after a pro se claim of ineffective assistance (Krankel inquiry) | The State: the court conducted an adequate preliminary inquiry and defendant’s claim lacked merit. | Skillom: the court failed to conduct a neutral, nonadversarial Krankel inquiry and forced counsel to defend his own effectiveness; new counsel was required. | Court: The procedure was error because the inquiry was not neutral (State acted adversarially), but the error was harmless because the plea colloquy objectively rebutted Skillom’s claim. |
| Whether Skillom is entitled to $5/day credit for 566 days in presentencing custody against certain fines | The State concedes the listed fines are creditable but argued total credit exceeds the fines. | Skillom: sought credit under 725 ILCS 5/110-14(a). | Court: Skillom is entitled to $2,830 credit (566 days × $5) which satisfies the $91.75 in listed fines; sentencing order modified to show those fines satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (trial court must inquire into pro se ineffective-assistance claims)
- People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68 (scope of preliminary Krankel inquiry and when new counsel required)
- People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142 (preliminary Krankel inquiry must be neutral and nonadversarial; State’s adversarial role can warrant reversal)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (harmless-error analysis; nonstructural errors subject to harmless-error review)
- People v. Valdez, 2016 IL 119860 (court admonitions can cure prejudice from counsel’s incorrect advice)