Krankel inquiry in Illinois

2026“The operative concern for the reviewing court is whether the trial court conducted an adequate inquiry into the defendant’s pro se allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 78 . ¶ 66 Whether the trial court properly conducted a preliminary Krankel inquiry presents a legal question that we review de novo.

2026“The operative concern for the reviewing court is whether the trial court conducted an adequate inquiry into the defendant’s pro se allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 78 . ¶ 66 Whether the trial court properly conducted a preliminary Krankel inquiry presents a legal question that we review de novo.

2026After the trial, the defendant filed a pro se motion for a Krankel hearing (see People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984)), alleging that his counsel was ineffective.

2026After the trial, the defendant filed a pro se motion for a Krankel hearing (see People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984)), alleging that his counsel was ineffective.

2026Thus, we conclude that the trial court’s inquiry was inadequate, and the proper remedy here is “to remand the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to conduct the required inquiry.” People v. Willis, 2013 IL App (1st) 110233, ¶ 73 ; see Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 26 (remanding for a Krankel inquiry where the court failed to conduct any inquiry into the factual basis of the defendant’s allegations). ¶ 59 There is, however, yet another reason for our reticence to accept that the court’s decision resulted from its own knowledge of the counsel’s performance.

2026Thus, we conclude that the trial court’s inquiry was inadequate, and the proper remedy here is “to remand the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to conduct the required inquiry.” People v. Willis, 2013 IL App (1st) 110233, ¶ 73 ; see Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 26 (remanding for a Krankel inquiry where the court failed to conduct any inquiry into the factual basis of the defendant’s allegations). ¶ 59 There is, however, yet another reason for our reticence to accept that the court’s decision resulted from its own knowledge of the counsel’s performance.

2026People v. Taylor, 237 Ill. 2d 68, 77 (2010); see also People v. Lobdell, 2017 IL App (3d) 150074, ¶ 37 (finding the assertion that defendant did not understand trial counsel’s failure to challenge the violation of his constitutional rights was sufficient to trigger a Krankel inquiry). ¶ 26 Here, defendant addressed the trial court after the sentencing hearing, and he appeared to raise two issues: (1) his confusion over the fact that his case began in one courtroom and “there was a change in venue” to another courtroom, and (2) “the public defender not contesting the robbery as I pled the fifth

2026People v. Taylor, 237 Ill. 2d 68, 77 (2010); see also People v. Lobdell, 2017 IL App (3d) 150074, ¶ 37 (finding the assertion that defendant did not understand trial counsel’s failure to challenge the violation of his constitutional rights was sufficient to trigger a Krankel inquiry). ¶ 26 Here, defendant addressed the trial court after the sentencing hearing, and he appeared to raise two issues: (1) his confusion over the fact that his case began in one courtroom and “there was a change in venue” to another courtroom, and (2) “the public defender not contesting the robbery as I pled the fifth

2026These procedures serve “ ‘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,’ ‘to promote consideration of pro se ineffective assistance claims in the trial court,’ and ‘to limit issues on appeal.’ ” People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 95 (quoting People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶¶ 39, 41 ). ¶ 36 “A Krankel inquiry proceeds in two stages.” People v. Palomera, 2022 IL App (2d) 200631, ¶ 56 .

2026These procedures serve “ ‘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,’ ‘to promote consideration of pro se ineffective assistance claims in the trial court,’ and ‘to limit issues on appeal.’ ” People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 95 (quoting People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶¶ 39, 41 ). ¶ 36 “A Krankel inquiry proceeds in two stages.” People v. Palomera, 2022 IL App (2d) 200631, ¶ 56 .

2026People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29 . ¶ 27 The State argues that “the trial court did not err by not conducting a Krankel hearing because it did not have jurisdiction to do so once the notice of appeal was filed.

2026People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29 . ¶ 27 The State argues that “the trial court did not err by not conducting a Krankel hearing because it did not have jurisdiction to do so once the notice of appeal was filed.

2026Specifically, defendant alleges that while he raised over a dozen potential instances of ineffective assistance of counsel and supported that claim with 22 exhibits, the trial court “conducted only a brief inquiry on [defendant]’s allegations as part of a routine post- trial hearing,” in which it “marched through the paragraphs in [defendant]’s pro se motion, dismissing nearly all of his contentions as ‘trial strategy,’ ” ultimately labeling the Krankel inquiry as “superficial.” ¶ 123 When a defendant makes allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel to a trial court, whether those allega

2026Specifically, defendant alleges that while he raised over a dozen potential instances of ineffective assistance of counsel and supported that claim with 22 exhibits, the trial court “conducted only a brief inquiry on [defendant]’s allegations as part of a routine post- trial hearing,” in which it “marched through the paragraphs in [defendant]’s pro se motion, dismissing nearly all of his contentions as ‘trial strategy,’ ” ultimately labeling the Krankel inquiry as “superficial.” ¶ 123 When a defendant makes allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel to a trial court, whether those allega

2025See Bell, 2018 IL App (4th) 151016, ¶¶ 24, 37 (declining to address the defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence where the cause first had to be remanded for the trial court to conduct a preliminary Krankel inquiry).

2025See Bell, 2018 IL App (4th) 151016, ¶¶ 24, 37 (declining to address the defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence where the cause first had to be remanded for the trial court to conduct a preliminary Krankel inquiry).

2026A Krankel hearing “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” and “is intended to promote consideration of pro se ineffective assistance claims in the trial court and to limit issues on appeal.” People v. Patrick, - 13 - No. 1-23-2032 2011 IL 111666, ¶¶ 39, 41 .

2026A Krankel hearing “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” and “is intended to promote consideration of pro se ineffective assistance claims in the trial court and to limit issues on appeal.” People v. Patrick, - 13 - No. 1-23-2032 2011 IL 111666, ¶¶ 39, 41 .

2022See People v. Nitz, 143 Ill. 2d 82, 134-35 (1991) (providing that a preliminary Krankel inquiry is conducted in order to determine whether to appoint counsel to pursue defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel).

2022See People v. Nitz, 143 Ill. 2d 82, 134-35 (1991) (providing that a preliminary Krankel inquiry is conducted in order to determine whether to appoint counsel to pursue defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel).

2025A defendant can do so by filing a 8 written motion (People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 29 ), making an oral motion (People v. Banks, 237 Ill. 2d 154, 213 (2010)), or giving the trial court a note or letter (People v. Munson, 171 Ill. 2d 158, 200 (1996)). “[W]hen a defendant brings a clear claim asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, either orally or in writing, this is sufficient to trigger the trial court’s duty to conduct a Krankel inquiry.” People v. Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 18 . ¶ 22 Here, while his January 4, 2023, motion to reconsider sentence was pending, defendant filed his pro

2025A defendant can do so by filing a 8 written motion (People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 29 ), making an oral motion (People v. Banks, 237 Ill. 2d 154, 213 (2010)), or giving the trial court a note or letter (People v. Munson, 171 Ill. 2d 158, 200 (1996)). “[W]hen a defendant brings a clear claim asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, either orally or in writing, this is sufficient to trigger the trial court’s duty to conduct a Krankel inquiry.” People v. Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 18 . ¶ 22 Here, while his January 4, 2023, motion to reconsider sentence was pending, defendant filed his pro

2025People v. Chapman, 194 Ill. 2d 186, 230 (2000). ¶ 23 We review de novo the issue of whether the trial court properly conducted a preliminary Krankel inquiry.

2025People v. Chapman, 194 Ill. 2d 186, 230 (2000). ¶ 23 We review de novo the issue of whether the trial court properly conducted a preliminary 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)).

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)).

2021People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 95 ; see also People v. Jocko, 239 Ill. 2d 87, 91 (2010). ¶ 29 The State contends that, because Jazwiec had already withdrawn and O’Connor had been appointed to represent defendant, the Krankel inquiry was not needed.

2021People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 95 ; see also People v. Jocko, 239 Ill. 2d 87, 91 (2010). ¶ 29 The State contends that, because Jazwiec had already withdrawn and O’Connor had been appointed to represent defendant, the Krankel inquiry was not needed.

2025Therefore, we will proceed to address the respondent’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims without addressing the trial court’s preliminary Krankel inquiry. 17 ¶ 49 On appeal, the respondent argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by (1) failing to request a limiting instruction regarding the basis of opinion testimony, (2) failing to object to certain expert testimony, and (3) failing to object to the State’s improper use of offense details and examination results during closing argument. ¶ 50 Despite being civil in nature, the Act provides a respondent w

2025Therefore, we will proceed to address the respondent’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims without addressing the trial court’s preliminary Krankel inquiry. 17 ¶ 49 On appeal, the respondent argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by (1) failing to request a limiting instruction regarding the basis of opinion testimony, (2) failing to object to certain expert testimony, and (3) failing to object to the State’s improper use of offense details and examination results during closing argument. ¶ 50 Despite being civil in nature, the Act provides a respondent w

2026Thus, we cannot conclude whether the error was harmless. ¶ 33 “When the defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are based on matters outside the record, as they are here, and the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Krankel inquiry, the proper remedy is to remand the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to conduct the required inquiry.” People v. Willis, 2013 IL App (1st) 110233, ¶ 74 ; People v. McLaurin, 2012 IL App (1st) 102943, ¶ 44 .

2025Because a defendant is not appointed new counsel at the preliminary Krankel inquiry, it is critical that the State’s participation at that proceeding, if any, be de minimis. - 20 - Certainly, the State should never be permitted to take an adversarial role against a pro se defendant at the preliminary Krankel inquiry.” People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 38 . ¶ 48 “A claim lacks merit if it is conclusory, misleading, or legally immaterial or does not bring to the trial court’s attention a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v. McLaurin, 2012 IL App (1st) 102943, ¶ 40 .

2020App. 3d 326, 339 , 833 N.E.2d 396, 407 (2005). “[A] preliminary Krankel inquiry should operate as a neutral and nonadversarial proceeding.” People v. Jolly, 2014 IL - 21 - 117142, ¶ 38, 25 N.E.3d 1127 .

2020App. 3d 326, 339 , 833 N.E.2d 396, 407 (2005). “[A] preliminary Krankel inquiry should operate as a neutral and nonadversarial proceeding.” People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 38 , 25 N.E.3d 1127 .

2025A defendant can do so by filing a 8 written motion (People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 29 ), making an oral motion (People v. Banks, 237 Ill. 2d 154, 213 (2010)), or giving the trial court a note or letter (People v. Munson, 171 Ill. 2d 158, 200 (1996)). “[W]hen a defendant brings a clear claim asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, either orally or in writing, this is sufficient to trigger the trial court’s duty to conduct a Krankel inquiry.” People v. Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 18 . ¶ 22 Here, while his January 4, 2023, motion to reconsider sentence was pending, defendant filed his pro

2025A defendant can do so by filing a 8 written motion (People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 29 ), making an oral motion (People v. Banks, 237 Ill. 2d 154, 213 (2010)), or giving the trial court a note or letter (People v. Munson, 171 Ill. 2d 158, 200 (1996)). “[W]hen a defendant brings a clear claim asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, either orally or in writing, this is sufficient to trigger the trial court’s duty to conduct a Krankel inquiry.” People v. Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 18 . ¶ 22 Here, while his January 4, 2023, motion to reconsider sentence was pending, defendant filed his pro

2026Id. ¶ 30 In December 2024, the trial court conducted a preliminary Krankel inquiry and heard claims defendant’s counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (1) not allowing defendant to testify, (2) refusing to let defendant see the transcripts from the first trial, and (3) failing to investigate an exculpatory video.

2026Id. ¶ 30 In December 2024, the trial court conducted a preliminary Krankel inquiry and heard claims defendant’s counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (1) not allowing defendant to testify, (2) refusing to let defendant see the transcripts from the first trial, and (3) failing to investigate an exculpatory video.

2024People v. Fields, 2013 IL App (2d) 120945, ¶ 39 . ¶ 14 In a letter to the trial court, and at the Krankel inquiry, defendant claimed his counsel failed to communicate a potential plea agreement to him.

2024People v. Fields, 2013 IL App (2d) 120945, ¶ 39 . ¶ 14 In a letter to the trial court, and at the Krankel inquiry, defendant claimed his counsel failed to communicate a potential plea agreement to him.

2022In this way, the circuit court will have the necessary information to determine whether new counsel should be appointed to argue the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v. Ayers, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 24 . ¶ 91 To the extent that defendant is asking this court to consider this colloquy as evidence regarding the merits of his underlying claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, “determining whether the defendant actually received ineffective assistance of counsel is for another day; the court does not reach the merits of such claims at the Krankel hearing.” People v. Roddis,

2022In this way, the circuit court will have the necessary information to determine whether new counsel should be appointed to argue the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v. Ayers, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 24 . ¶ 91 To the extent that defendant is asking this court to consider this colloquy as evidence regarding the merits of his underlying claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, “determining whether the defendant actually received ineffective assistance of counsel is for another day; the court does not reach the merits of such claims at the Krankel hearing.” People v. Roddis,

2022People v. Coan, 2016 IL App (2d) 151036 , ¶ 24. ¶ 58 The State further argues, relying on People v. Pecoraro, 144 Ill. 2d 1, 15 (1991), that a Krankel inquiry is not required when, as in this case, a defendant is represented by retained counsel of his choosing and has not requested alternate counsel.

2022People v. Coan, 2016 IL App (2d) 151036 , ¶ 24. ¶ 58 The State further argues, relying on People v. Pecoraro, 144 Ill. 2d 1, 15 (1991), that a Krankel inquiry is not required when, as in this case, a defendant is represented by retained counsel of his choosing and has not requested alternate counsel.

2025See People v. Wilson, 2024 IL App (4th) 231281-U, ¶ 31 (noting that the “defendant received the same benefit he could have received if the court had conducted a preliminary Krankel inquiry and determined his allegations showed possible neglect of his case by [trial counsel]—the appointment of new counsel to independently evaluate defendant’s claims and present them to the court”); see also People v. Downing, 2019 IL App (1st) 170329, ¶ 59 (“In other words, the defendant received all that a preliminary Krankel inquiry could have given him, anyway.”). ¶ 76 3.

2025See People v. Wilson, 2024 IL App (4th) 231281-U, ¶ 31 (noting that the “defendant received the same benefit he could have received if the court had conducted a preliminary Krankel inquiry and determined his allegations showed possible neglect of his case by [trial counsel]—the appointment of new counsel to independently evaluate defendant’s claims and present them to the court”); see also People v. Downing, 2019 IL App (1st) 170329, ¶ 59 (“In other words, the defendant received all that a preliminary Krankel inquiry could have given him, anyway.”). ¶ 76 3.

2025The standard of review for the adequacy of a Krankel hearing depends on the trial court’s actions. “[I]f the trial court made no determination on the merits, then our standard of review is de novo.” People v. Tolefree, 2011 IL App (1st) 100689, ¶ 25 .

2022People v. Tolefree, 2011 IL App (1st) 100689, ¶ 29 (holding that the trial court’s failure to conduct a preliminary Krankel inquiry was harmless error); see People v. Skillom, 2017 IL App (2d) 150681, ¶ 28 (noting that our supreme court has never held that errors committed during a preliminary Krankel hearing could never be subject to harmless-error review). ¶ 63 In the present case, we hold that the trial court’s failure to conduct a preliminary Krankel inquiry was harmless error.

2026People v. Thomas, 2017 IL App (4th) 150815, ¶ 26 (“In instances where the defendant’s claim [of ineffective assistance of counsel] is implicit and could be subject to different interpretations, a Krankel inquiry is not required.”); see People v. Cook, 2023 IL App (4th) 210621, ¶¶ 67-68 .

2026People v. Thomas, 2017 IL App (4th) 150815, ¶ 26 (“In instances where the defendant’s claim [of ineffective assistance of counsel] is implicit and could be subject to different interpretations, a Krankel inquiry is not required.”); see People v. Cook, 2023 IL App (4th) 210621, ¶¶ 67-68 .

2026“A reviewing court should consider three factors when determining whether - 12 - a Krankel inquiry was sufficient: (1) whether there was some interchange between the trial court and defense counsel regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegedly ineffective representation, (2) the sufficiency of defendant’s pro se allegations of ineffective assistance, and (3) the trial court’s knowledge of defense counsel’s performance at trial and the sufficiency of the defendant’s allegations on their face.” People v. Schnoor, 2019 IL App (4th) 170571, ¶ 71 . ¶ 58 “None of these factors are

2026“A reviewing court should consider three factors when determining whether - 12 - a Krankel inquiry was sufficient: (1) whether there was some interchange between the trial court and defense counsel regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegedly ineffective representation, (2) the sufficiency of defendant’s pro se allegations of ineffective assistance, and (3) the trial court’s knowledge of defense counsel’s performance at trial and the sufficiency of the defendant’s allegations on their face.” People v. Schnoor, 2019 IL App (4th) 170571, ¶ 71 . ¶ 58 “None of these factors are