pro se claim in Illinois

2026“The new counsel would then represent the defendant at the hearing on the defendant’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance.” Id.

2025Thus, this passage in Moore, contrary to the State’s argument, does not justify Krankel counsel’s conduct in this case; at best, it simply does not support Krankel counsel’s conduct, and at worst, it demonstrates that Krankel counsel’s conduct was wholly unsupported by law.” (Emphasis in original.) Downs, 2017 IL App (2d) 121156-C, ¶ 47 . - 35 - ¶ 147 The Second District, expanding on what being an “advocate for the defendant” required of Krankel counsel and focusing on the statement in Moore that “[t]he new counsel would then represent the defendant at the hearing on the defendant’s pro se cl

2025The purpose of a Krankel proceeding is to “facilitate the trial court’s full consideration of a defendant’s pro se claim and thereby potentially limit issues on appeal” (People v. Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 13 ), not to ascertain the truth of any additional evidence the defendant claims should have been presented.

2025In evaluating a pro se claim, “some interchange between the trial court and trial counsel regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegedly ineffective representation is permissible and usually necessary.” Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 11 .

2026In People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181, 189 (1984), our supreme court held that a defendant who files a pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is entitled to new counsel to represent him in connection with the claim.

2025Thus, the trial court found that the defendant had failed to show prejudice and denied any relief. 1 People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), and its progeny, mandate a preliminary inquiry, commonly referred to as a Krankel hearing, into the factual basis of a defendant’s pro se claim that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. 3 ¶ 10 The defendant appealed his conviction, and on December 10, 2014, this court vacated the defendant’s conviction based upon a finding that the armed violence statute prohibited the use of aggravated battery with a firearm as a predicate offense

2015People v. Bobo, 375 Ill.

2015People v. Bobo, 375 Ill.

2025This process of screening a pro se claim is often referred to as a “preliminary Krankel inquiry.” People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 30 .

2025This process of screening a pro se claim is often referred to as a “preliminary Krankel inquiry.” People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 28 .

2025“The new counsel would then represent the defendant at the hearing on the pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id. “[A]ppointed counsel can independently evaluate the pro se claim and avoid the conflict of interest that defendant’s trial counsel would experience in trying to justify his or her actions contrary to the defendant’s position.” Id. ¶ 32 “To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant.” People v. Domagala, 2013 IL 113688, ¶ 36

2025“The new counsel would then represent the defendant at the hearing on the pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id. “[A]ppointed counsel can independently evaluate the pro se claim and avoid the conflict of interest that defendant’s trial counsel would experience in trying to justify his or her actions contrary to the defendant’s position.” Id. ¶ 32 “To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant.” People v. Domagala, 2013 IL 113688, ¶ 36

2025Id. at 75 . ¶ 16 Defendant argues his affidavit was functionally equivalent to a pro se claim of ineffective assistance of plea counsel.

2022See People v. Taylor, 237 Ill. 2d 68, 75 (2010). ¶ 44 In the present case, the issue is whether defense counsel’s statements in the motion to withdraw, and his statements at the hearing on the motion, were sufficient to trigger the requirement of a Krankel inquiry.

2025A preliminary Krankel inquiry “serves the narrow purpose of allowing the trial court to decide whether to appoint independent counsel to argue a defendant’s pro se posttrial ineffective assistance claims.” People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 39 . ¶ 110 A defendant’s pro se claim lacks merit if it is misleading, conclusory, or legally immaterial or fails to “ ‘bring to the trial court’s attention a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.’ ” People v. Cook, 2018 IL App (1st) 142134, ¶ 104 (quoting People v. Johnson, 159 Ill. 2d 97, 126 (1994)).

2022A preliminary Krankel inquiry “serves the narrow purpose of allowing the trial court to decide whether to appoint independent counsel to argue a defendant’s pro se posttrial ineffective assistance claims.” People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 39 . ¶ 43 A defendant’s pro se claim lacks merit if it is misleading, conclusory, or legally immaterial or fails to “ ‘bring to the trial court’s attention a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.’ ” People v. Cook, 2018 IL App (1st) 142134, ¶ 104 (quoting People v. Johnson, 159 Ill. 2d 97, 126 (1994)).

2025A preliminary Krankel inquiry “serves the narrow purpose of allowing the trial court to decide whether to appoint independent counsel to argue a defendant’s pro se posttrial ineffective assistance claims.” People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 39 . ¶ 110 A defendant’s pro se claim lacks merit if it is misleading, conclusory, or legally immaterial or fails to “ ‘bring to the trial court’s attention a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.’ ” People v. Cook, 2018 IL App (1st) 142134, ¶ 104 (quoting People v. Johnson, 159 Ill. 2d 97, 126 (1994)).

2022A preliminary Krankel inquiry “serves the narrow purpose of allowing the trial court to decide whether to appoint independent counsel to argue a defendant’s pro se posttrial ineffective assistance claims.” People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 39 . ¶ 43 A defendant’s pro se claim lacks merit if it is misleading, conclusory, or legally immaterial or fails to “ ‘bring to the trial court’s attention a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.’ ” People v. Cook, 2018 IL App (1st) 142134, ¶ 104 (quoting People v. Johnson, 159 Ill. 2d 97, 126 (1994)).

2025A preliminary Krankel inquiry “serves the narrow purpose of allowing the trial court to decide whether to appoint independent counsel to argue a defendant’s pro se posttrial ineffective assistance claims.” People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 39 . ¶ 110 A defendant’s pro se claim lacks merit if it is misleading, conclusory, or legally immaterial or fails to “ ‘bring to the trial court’s attention a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.’ ” People v. Cook, 2018 IL App (1st) 142134, ¶ 104 (quoting People v. Johnson, 159 Ill. 2d 97, 126 (1994)).

2023The supreme court noted that, “once a notice of appeal has been filed, the trial court loses jurisdiction of the case and may not entertain a Krankel motion raising a pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id.

2022In remanding the case, the reviewing court also “decline[d] to address defendant’s other claims on appeal.” Bell, 2018 IL App (4th) 151016, ¶ 37 (citing People v. Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 13 ) (“[T]he goal of any Krankel proceeding is to facilitate the trial court’s full consideration of a defendant’s pro se claim and thereby potentially limit issues on appeal.”) The court recognized -5- 1-20-0168 that “[d]epending on the result of the preliminary Krankel inquiry, defendant’s other claims may become moot.” Id. ¶ 16 Since Bell was decided, its reasoning was followed in People v. Roberson, 2021

2021See People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 28 (“preliminary Krankel inquiry”); People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶¶ 95-97 (“Krankel procedure”); and People v. Schnoor, 2019 IL App (4th) 170571, ¶ 34 (“Krankel hearing”). ¶ 19 Under the Krankel procedure, when a criminal defendant raises a pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel after a trial, “the trial court must conduct an inquiry into the factual basis of the defendant’s claim to determine whether new counsel should be appointed to assist the defendant.” People v. Bell, 2018 IL App (4th) 151016, ¶ 35 .

2019See People v. Fields, 2013 IL App (2d) 120945, ¶ 41 , 997 N.E.2d 791 (trial court violated the defendant’s right to be represented by counsel by converting a Krankel hearing on the defendant’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance into an adversarial proceeding); People v. Cabrales, 325 Ill.

2019See People v. Fields, 2013 IL App (2d) 120945, ¶ 41 , 997 N.E.2d 791 (trial court violated the defendant’s right to be represented by counsel by converting a Krankel hearing on the defendant’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance into an adversarial proceeding); People v. Cabrales, 325 Ill.

2025Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ¶ 138 A defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is analyzed under the two- pronged test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

2025“More specifically, a defendant must show that counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable under prevailing - 10 - professional norms and that there is a ‘reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” Id. (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)). ¶ 33 Here, defendant alleged at the Krankel hearing that he had informed counsel prior to trial of A.R.’s “medical condition” and that she “saw a psychiatrist three times a week at school” and “constantly fabricated stories on [her] mother and

2023Id. (citing People v. Downs, 2017 IL App (2d) 121156-C, ¶ 43 ).

2023Rather, “the law require[s] some type of inquiry into the underlying factual basis of the defendant’s pro se claim.” People v. Palomera, 2022 IL App (2d) 200631, ¶ 60 (citing Reed, 2018 IL App (1st) 160609, ¶ 51 .

2025Id. ¶ 136 The supreme court has observed that “the purpose of the Krankel procedure is to - 32 - establish a factual basis of the defendant’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, to create a record, and to limit the issues on appeal.” In re Johnathan T., 2022 IL 127222, ¶ 43 . ¶ 137 b.

2023See In re Johnathan T., 2022 IL 127222, ¶ 43 (Krankel procedure is intended to establish facts underlying the ineffective assistance claim, create a record, and limit the issues on appeal). ¶ 39 We find that defendant did not clearly raise a pro se claim of ineffective assistance by raising his hand.

2022Alternatively, if the court’s preliminary investigation of the defendant’s pro se claim reveals that “the claim lacks merit or pertains to matters of trial strategy[,] then no new counsel need be appointed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Nitz, 143 Ill. 2d at 134 . ¶ 24 The supreme court has described how the circuit court might carry out this preliminary investigation: “During this evaluation, some interchange between the trial court and trial counsel regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegedly ineffective representation is permissible and usually necessary in assessi

2009We emphasized we were not remanding for appointment of counsel and a full evidentiary hearing; rather, our remand was limited to conducting an inquiry mandated by People v. Nitz, 143 Ill. 2d 82 , 672 N.E.2d 895 (1991), on the single pro se claim of failure to call witness Nemerow.

2026Estrada “also [had] an obligation to inform counsel generally of the information which such witnesses might have offered at trial.” Id. ¶ 60 The parties agree the pro se claim lacked that information.

2022The pro se claim, as defendant describes it in his brief, was that, “as applied to him[,] [his] life sentence for an offense that he committed at just 19 years old violated the eighth amendment.” Instead of presenting that claim “to the court in appropriate legal form” (People v. Johnson, 154 Ill. 2d 227, 245 (1993)) and instead of buttressing that claim with discussions of “the relevant science on juvenile brain development” and descriptions of the trauma and deprivations that defendant suffered in his childhood, postconviction counsel raised a challenge to the knowingness of the guilty plea.

2025App. 3d 326, 339 (2005) (recognizing that the trial court was not in a position to evaluate the defendant’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance for failure to subpoena witnesses simply by relying on facts within its knowledge where the record did not reveal who the witnesses were or what they would have said on the stand); People v. McLaurin, 2012 IL App (1st) 102943, ¶ 53 (remand for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to make a more complete inquiry into defense counsel’s efforts “to investigate” the witness and “secure his testimony for the second trial,” was needed); People

2024App. 3d 326, 339 (2005) (recognizing that the trial court was not in a position to evaluate the defendant’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance for failure to subpoena witnesses simply by relying on facts within its knowledge where the record did not reveal who 19 1-22-1136 the witnesses were or what they would have said on the stand); People v. McLaurin, 2012 IL App (1st) 102943 (remand for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to make a more complete inquiry into defense counsel’s efforts “to investigate” the witness and “secure his testimony for the second trial,” was needed);

2025Thus, where the appointment of new counsel for a defendant does not result in any further litigation of the defendant’s pro se ineffective-assistance claim, “it cannot be said that that appointment satisfied the requirements of Krankel and its progeny.” Roberson, 2021 IL App (3d) 190212, ¶ 21 ; see People v. Kyles, 2020 IL App (2d) 180087, ¶ 36 (explaining that “if the defendant has made a sufficient pro se claim of ineffective assistance and request for new counsel, the general appointment of new counsel does not eliminate the trial court’s obligation to make a preliminary inquiry into the me

2024App. 3d 326, 339 (2005) (recognizing that the trial court was not in a position to evaluate the defendant’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance for failure to subpoena witnesses simply by relying on facts within its knowledge where the record did not reveal who 19 1-22-1136 the witnesses were or what they would have said on the stand); People v. McLaurin, 2012 IL App (1st) 102943 (remand for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to make a more complete inquiry into defense counsel’s efforts “to investigate” the witness and “secure his testimony for the second trial,” was needed);

2023People v. Rhodes, 2019 IL App (4th) 160917, ¶ 12 , 128 N.E.3d 1100 .

2023People v. Rhodes, 2019 IL App (4th) 160917, ¶ 12 , 128 N.E.3d 1100 .