People v. Washington
2012 IL App (2d) 101287
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Brandon A. Washington was charged May 27, 2009 with attempted first‑degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm.
- A private attorney was appointed; speedy-trial demand and discovery motions were filed.
- Indictment occurred Sept 11, 2009 and, after amendments, July 23, 2010, the case included six counts.
- On May 25, 2010, Washington filed a pro se motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and violation of section 109-3.1(b).
- The court scheduled hearings, later set trial for Aug 9, 2010, and the jury trial began Sept 13, 2010 resulting in Washington’s conviction; posttrial motions were denied and the conviction was appealed.
- Washington argued the trial court should have conducted a Krankel-style pretrial inquiry into his pro se ineffective-assistance claims; the appellate court held Jocko governs pretrial inquiry and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Krankel pretrial inquiry was required for pro se claims | People contends no Krankel pretrial inquiry is required under Jocko | Washington contends Krankel duty applies pretrial | No pretrial Krankel required; Jocko limits inquiry; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Krankel v. Illinois, 102 Ill.2d 181 (1984) (basic Krankel framework for posttrial ineffectiveness claims)
- Jocko, 239 Ill.2d 87 (2010) (pretrial claims not reviewed under Krankel unless prejudice exists)
- Moore, 207 Ill.2d 68 (2003) (pretrial and posttrial evaluation of ineffective assistance; when to appoint new counsel)
- Crane, 145 Ill.2d 520 (1991) (limits on appointing new counsel when claims lack merit or concern trial tactics)
- Youngblood, 389 Ill. App.3d 209 (2009) (pretrial prejudice requirement governs ineffective-assistance claims)