factual basis claim in Illinois

2024“Specifically, the ‘trial court must conduct an adequate inquiry ***, that is, inquiry sufficient to determine the factual basis of the claim.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Banks, 237 Ill. 2d 154, 213 (2010)).

2022In People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68, 77-78 (2003), the court explained that when a defendant makes a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the trial court should examine the factual basis of the claim.

2025The inquiry must be “sufficient to determine the factual basis of the claim.” People v. Banks, 237 Ill. 2d 154, 213 (2010).

2024“Specifically, the ‘trial court must conduct an adequate inquiry ***, that is, inquiry sufficient to determine the factual basis of the claim.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Banks, 237 Ill. 2d 154, 213 (2010)).

2025On review, our primary concern is the adequacy of the circuit court’s inquiry—whether it is “sufficient 17 to determine the factual basis of the claim.” Ayers, 2017 IL 120071, ¶¶ 11, 13 .

2025“Specifically, the trial court must conduct an adequate inquiry ***, that is, inquiry sufficient to determine the factual basis of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 11 .

2026See People v. Roddis, 2020 IL 124352, ¶ 34 . ¶ 53 When a defendant files a pro se posttrial motion alleging trial counsel’s ineffectiveness, the court must conduct a preliminary inquiry to examine the factual basis of the claim.

2025See People v. Roddis, 2020 IL 124352, ¶ 34 . ¶ 51 When a defendant files a pro se posttrial motion alleging trial counsel’s ineffectiveness, the court must conduct a preliminary inquiry to examine the factual basis of the claim.

2026"Because summary judgment is a drastic means of disposing of litigation, a court must exercise extraordinary diligence in reviewing the record so as not to preempt a party's right to fully present the factual basis for its claim." Northern Illinois Emergency Physicians v. Landau, Omahana & Kopka, Ltd., 216 Ill. 2d 294, 305 (2005).

2026"Because summary judgment is a drastic means of disposing of litigation, a court must exercise extraordinary diligence in reviewing the record so as not to preempt a party's right to fully present the factual basis for its claim." Northern Illinois Emergency Physicians v. Landau, Omahana & Kopka, Ltd., 216 Ill. 2d 294, 305-06 (2005). ¶ 22 "In appeals from summary judgment rulings, the standard of review is de novo." Lewis v. Lead Industries Association, 2020 IL 124107, ¶ 15 .

2020July 1, 2012), but that rule merely states that the court “shall not enter final judgment on a plea of guilty without first determining that there is a factual basis for the plea.” There is no statute or rule that requires the defendant personally stipulate to the factual basis for the plea. “[A]ll the trial court need do to comply with the factual basis requirement of Rule 402(c) is to ask the prosecutor to briefly describe the evidence the State would be prepared to present if the case went to trial.” (Emphasis in original.) People v. Williams, 299 Ill.

2017This court has further held, “[A]ll the trial court need do to comply with the factual basis requirement *** is to ask the prosecutor to briefly describe the evidence the State would be prepared to present if the case went to trial.” (Emphasis in original.) People v. Williams, 299 Ill.

2021People v. Thomas, 2017 IL App (4th) 150815, ¶ 24 . ¶ 34 As stated earlier in this order, when the defendant raises an ineffective assistance claim at a posttrial hearing, the “trial court must conduct an adequate inquiry ***, that is, inquiry sufficient to determine the factual basis of the claim.” People v. Banks, 237 Ill. 2d 154, 213 (2010) (citing People v. Johnson, 159 Ill. 2d 97, 124 (1994)).

2010Johnson, 159 Ill. 2d at 124 ; People v. James, 362 Ill.

2010Northern Illinois, 216 Ill. 2d at 305-06 , citing Sullivan's Wholesale Drug Co. v. Faryl's Pharmacy, Inc., 214 Ill.

2010Northern Illinois, 216 Ill. 2d at 305-06 , citing Sullivan’s Wholesale Drug Co. v. Faryl’s Pharmacy, Inc., 214 Ill.

2017M.H., 196 Ill. 2d at 365-66, 751 N.E.2d at 1141.

2017M.H., 196 Ill. 2d at 365-66, 751 N.E.2d at 1141.

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.

2012See Taylor, 237 Ill.2d at 75 , 340 Ill.Dec. 161 , 927 N.E.2d 1172 . ¶ 10 As an initial matter, we reject the State's argument that defendant's statement concerning counsel's failure to represent her to his fullest ability necessarily related back to defendant's pro se motion for a new trial wherein she expressed her desire to present certain additional witnesses.

2004See Hall, 198 Ill. 2d at 181 , 760 N.E.2d at 975 .

2002In People v. Hall, 198 Ill. 2d 173, 181 (2001), the supreme court held that to comport with due process a defendant at a probation revocation hearing must be advised of various rights he is giving up if he enters an admission to the allegations of the petition as well as a factual basis for the violation.

2025People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 28 . ¶ 67 The record here shows that on the date of his sentencing hearing, defendant specifically told the trial court that he wished to file a “Krankel motion for ineffective assistance of counsel.” Once defendant raised the posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the court was required under Krankel to conduct an adequate preliminary inquiry into the factual basis of the claim.

2020This inquiry, which is sometimes referred to as a “preliminary Krankel inquiry” (People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 28 ), requires that, once a defendant brings his pro se claim to the court’s attention, the court must examine the factual basis of the claim (Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 77-78 ).

2024Pursuant to People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), and its progeny, whenever a defendant makes a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court must first determine the factual basis of the claim.

2023Therefore, we assume this was a mistake. 2 ¶7 On appeal, defendant argues that the court should have conducted a preliminary inquiry pursuant to Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d at 189 , when he wrote in his motion, “Misrepreasentation on my behalf by my attorney.” Under the procedure developed in Krankel and its progeny, when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the circuit court is required to conduct a preliminary inquiry to examine the factual basis of the claim.

2011App.3d 791, 794 , 233 Ill.Dec. 912 , 701 N.E.2d 1186, 1188 (1998), this court reaffirmed the following procedure we espoused in C.K.G., 292 Ill.App.3d at 378 , 226 Ill.Dec. 577 , 685 N.E.2d at 1037 , concerning compliance with Rule 402(c): "[A]ll the trial court need do to comply with the factual basis requirement of Rule 402(c) is to ask the prosecutor to briefly describe the evidence the State would be prepared to present if the case went to trial.

2011App.3d 791, 794 , 233 Ill.Dec. 912 , 701 N.E.2d 1186, 1188 (1998), this court reaffirmed the following procedure we espoused in C.K.G., 292 Ill.App.3d at 378 , 226 Ill.Dec. 577 , 685 N.E.2d at 1037 , concerning compliance with Rule 402(c): "[A]ll the trial court need do to comply with the factual basis requirement of Rule 402(c) is to ask the prosecutor to briefly describe the evidence the State would be prepared to present if the case went to trial.

2026By contrast, “[w]here the record shows that the trial court made every effort to ascertain the nature and substance of defendant’s ineffective assistance claim, and defendant was allowed to present in detail the factual basis of the claim, failure to appoint counsel can be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v. Bobo, 2020 IL App (1st) 182628, ¶ 39 .

2023See People v. Bobo, 2020 IL App (1st) 182628, ¶ 40 (finding the trial court conducted a sufficient preliminary inquiry under Krankel where “[t]he record shows that [it] made a significant effort to explore [the] defendant’s claim *** and gave defendant ample opportunity to present the factual basis of his claim”). ¶ 45 Relying on People v. McCarter, 385 Ill.

2008Lamkin v. Towner, 246 Ill.

2008Lamkin v. Towner, 246 Ill.App.3d 201, 204 , 186 Ill.Dec. 151 , 615 N.E.2d 1208 (1993).

2022An adequate preliminary Krankel inquiry is an “ ‘inquiry sufficient to determine the factual basis of the claim.’ ” Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 11 (quoting People v. Banks, 237 Ill. 2d 154, 213 (2010)). ¶ 51 “The applicable standard of review depends on whether the trial court did or did not determine the merits of the defendant’s pro se posttrial claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 98 .

2022Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 97 . ¶ 17 At the preliminary Krankel inquiry, the court may consider both the factual basis for the claim and its legal merits.

2017“Thus, a factual-basis requirement that supports an admission that the child is abused, neglected, or dependent can be no more burdensome for the State than that required in a criminal context, where a defendant’s personal liberty may be at risk.” C.J., 2011 IL App (4th) 110476, ¶ 54 , 960 N.E.2d 694 . ¶ 34 In this case, the State provided a sufficient factual basis at the August 2016 fitness hearing to support respondent’s admission that (1) Dal.

2017“Thus, a factual-basis requirement that supports an admission that the child is abused, neglected, or dependent can be no more burdensome for the State than that required in a criminal context, where a defendant’s personal liberty may be at risk.” C.J., 2011 IL App (4th) 110476, ¶ 54 , 960 N.E.2d 694 . ¶ 34 In this case, the State provided a sufficient factual basis at the August 2016 fitness hearing to support respondent’s admission that (1) Dal.

2023Ordinarily, an adequate inquiry may include “(1) questioning the trial counsel, (2) questioning the defendant, [or] (3) relying on [the court’s] own knowledge of the trial counsel’s performance in the trial.” People v. Peacock, 359 Ill.

2023Ordinarily, an adequate inquiry may include “(1) questioning the trial counsel, (2) questioning the defendant, [or] (3) relying on [the court’s] own knowledge of the trial counsel’s performance in the trial.” People v. Peacock, 359 Ill.

2001In People v. Barker, 83 Ill. 2d 319 (1980), this court discussed the factual basis requirement and concluded: “[T]he quantum of proof necessary to establish a factual basis for the plea is less than that necessary to sustain a conviction after a full trial. [Citations.] All that is required to appear on the record is a basis from which the judge could reasonably reach the conclusion that the defendant actually committed the acts with the intent (if any) required to constitute the offense to which the defendant is pleading guilty. [Citations.] In evaluating the sufficiency of the factual basis

2001In People v. Barker, 83 Ill. 2d 319 (1980), this court discussed the factual basis requirement and concluded: “[T]he quantum of proof necessary to establish a factual basis for the plea is less than that necessary to sustain a conviction after a full trial. [Citations.] All that is required to appear on the record is a basis from which the judge could reasonably reach the conclusion that the defendant actually committed the acts with the intent (if any) required to constitute the offense to which the defendant is pleading guilty. [Citations.] In evaluating the sufficiency of the factual basis