posttrial hearing in Illinois

2020Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 11 ; People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 39 ; Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 78 . ¶ 26 To raise a posttrial claim of ineffective assistance, “[a] pro se defendant is not required to do any more than bring his or her claim to the trial court’s attention.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 11 .

2020Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 11 ; People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 39 ; Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 78 . ¶ 26 To raise a posttrial claim of ineffective assistance, “[a] pro se defendant is not required to do any more than bring his or her claim to the trial court’s attention.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 11 .

2026People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112 ¶ 95 .

2023Krankel Hearing ¶ 49 As this court recently held in People v. Cook, 2023 IL App (4th) 210621, ¶ 52 , “Krankel and its progeny establish the procedures a trial court must follow when a pro se defendant raises a posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” (citing Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d at 187-89 ; People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29 ; People v. Roddis, 2020 IL 124352, ¶ 34 ; People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 95 ).

2025We find Krankel did not apply, as defendant was represented by posttrial counsel when he filed his pro se posttrial motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. ¶ 25 As this court recently observed in People v. Harkey, 2025 IL App (4th) 230523, ¶ 71 , “[t]he common law procedure first recognized in Krankel 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 of counsel claims.” (Emphasis in original and internal quotation marks omitted.) “[A] Krankel hearing is a term of

2025Thus, “a Krankel hearing is a term of art to describe the hearing the court must conduct when a defendant pro se has raised a posttrial claim regarding his counsel’s ineffective assistance.” People v. McGath, 2017 IL App (4th) 150608, ¶ 51 . ¶ 72 Because the only issue to be decided at a Krankel inquiry is whether new counsel should be appointed, there are only two possible outcomes when a trial court conducts a Krankel inquiry: (1) the court appoints new counsel who should then conduct an independent evaluation of the defendant’s ineffective assistance claims and take whatever action counsel

2025People v. McGee, 2021 2021 IL App (2d) 190040, ¶ 41 .

2022People v. McGee, 2021 IL App (2d) 190040, ¶ 41 .

2023Krankel Hearing ¶ 49 As this court recently held in People v. Cook, 2023 IL App (4th) 210621, ¶ 52 , “Krankel and its progeny establish the procedures a trial court must follow when a pro se defendant raises a posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” (citing Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d at 187-89 ; People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29 ; People v. Roddis, 2020 IL 124352, ¶ 34 ; People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 95 ).

2023See Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d at 187-89 ; People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29 ; People v. Roddis, 2020 IL 124352, ¶ 34 ; People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 95 .

2020In re Estate of Wilson, 238 Ill. 2d 519, 555 (2010); Calabrese v. Benitez, 2015 IL App (3d) 130827, ¶ 26 . ¶ 37 During the posttrial hearing, Judge Varga gave an account of facts: (i) Parrillo tried to deceive the court when he submitted the original affidavit, (ii) his counsel bungled the filing of the motion for a continuance, and (iii) his counsel chose not to participate in the trial, despite the ability and the opportunity to do so.

2020In re Estate of Wilson, 238 Ill. 2d 519, 555 (2010); Calabrese v. Benitez, 2015 IL App (3d) 130827, ¶ 26 . ¶ 37 During the posttrial hearing, Judge Varga gave an account of facts: (i) Parrillo tried to deceive the court when he submitted the original affidavit, (ii) his counsel bungled the filing of the motion for a continuance, and (iii) his counsel chose not to participate in the trial, despite the ability and the opportunity to do so.

2019We agree with respondent's third argument and remand for a Krankel hearing. ¶ 20 A. The Applicable Krankel Law and Standard of Review ¶ 21 "When a pro se defendant makes a posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the trial court's responsibility to follow the common law procedure in Krankel is triggered." People v. Rhodes , 2019 IL App (4th) 160917 , ¶ 12, 431 Ill.Dec. 930 , 128 N.E.3d 1100 .

2019We agree with respondent's third argument and remand for a Krankel hearing. ¶ 20 A. The Applicable Krankel Law and Standard of Review ¶ 21 "When a pro se defendant makes a posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the trial court's responsibility to follow the common law procedure in Krankel is triggered." People v. Rhodes , 2019 IL App (4th) 160917 , ¶ 12, 431 Ill.Dec. 930 , 128 N.E.3d 1100 .

2018Curry was convicted of armed robbery (on an accountability theory) and sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment. ¶ 2 At a posttrial hearing, Curry's counsel told the trial court that Curry alleged that counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress Curry's statement to police based on Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

2018Curry was convicted of armed robbery (on an accountability theory) and sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment. ¶ 2 At a posttrial hearing, Curry's counsel told the trial court that Curry alleged that counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress Curry's statement to police based on Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

2015Id. at 35 . ¶ 47 As the State argued at the posttrial hearing, Torres’ prior actions were offensive, but were not offenses.

2015Id. at 35 . ¶ 47 As the State argued at the posttrial hearing, Torres' prior actions were offensive, but were not offenses.

2015McLaurin, 2012 IL App. (1st) 102943, ¶ 47 .

2015McLaurin, 2012 IL App (1st) 102943, ¶ 47 .

2014In finding no per se conflict, the court noted that the defendant was represented by different counsel on appeal, “who was unencumbered by any conflict in arguing ineffective assistance by trial counsel and did so zealously.” Id. at 762 . ¶ 45 Steele contends the Perkins rationale does not apply–although he is presented by new, conflict-free counsel in this appeal, it appears from defense counsel’s statements at the posttrial hearing that he had X-rays and range of motion studies performed on Porrata that could have been used for impeachment purposes and his appellate counsel does not have acc

2014In finding no per se conflict, the court noted that the defendant was represented by different counsel on appeal, "who was unencumbered by any conflict in arguing ineffective assistance by trial counsel and did so zealously." Id. at 762 . ¶ 45 Steele contends the Perkins rationale does not apply—although he is presented by new, conflict-free counsel in this appeal, it appears from defense counsel's statements at the posttrial hearing that he had X-rays and range of motion studies performed on Porrata that could have been used for impeachment purposes and his appellate counsel does not have acc

2008We summarized the letter as follows: "The letter contains a number of Dr. Brown's findings and observations as to defendant's fitness to stand trial, including: (1) that defendant's judgment was grossly impaired; (2) that defendant was irrational; (3) that defendant did not appreciate that the court 'had the ability to take control of him, restrict his freedom, and try him on criminal charges'; (4) that defendant was 'angrily out of control' while in court; (5) that defendant is 'suffering from a psychotic disorder in which his mood fluctuates rapidly'; (6) that defendant is 'suspicious, distr

2008We summarized the letter as follows: “The letter contains a number of Dr. Brown’s findings and observations as to defendant’s fitness to stand trial, including: (1) that defendant’s judgment was grossly impaired; (2) that defendant was irrational; (3) that defendant did not appreciate that the court ‘had the ability to take control of him, restrict his freedom, and try him on criminal charges’; (4) that defendant was ‘angrily out of control’ while in court; (5) that defendant is ‘suffering from a psychotic disorder in which his mood fluctuates rapidly’; (6) that defendant is ‘suspicious, distr

2008App. 3d 283 , 660 N.E.2d 1321 (1996), for the proposition that defense counsel is required at a posttrial hearing to "ensure that the trial court made an appro- priate reconsideration of the sentence." Defendant then tries to - 12 - turn this rather unremarkable proposition into a contention that Brasseaux requires counsel to file a motion to reconsider sen- tence in every case, even if counsel believes the motion to be groundless.

2008App. 3d 283 , 660 N.E.2d 1321 (1996), for the proposition that defense counsel is required at a posttrial hearing to “ensure that the trial court made an appropriate reconsideration of the sentence.” Defendant then tries to turn this rather unremarkable proposition into a contention that Brasseaux requires counsel to file a motion to reconsider sentence in every case, even if counsel believes the motion to be groundless.

2005Cf. Childers v. State, 782 So. 2d 513, 518 (Fla. App. 2001) (no formal hearing on the use of physical restraints is necessary, but where there is a total lack of a record, the decision should be remanded for a hearing); see also People v. Williams, 36 A.D.2d 1018 , 321 N.Y.S.2d 463 (1971) (where the facts relevant to the needs of restraint of defendant are not sufficiently developed at trial, a posttrial hearing should be held on that issue); People v. Reingold, 44 A.D.2d 191 , 353 N.Y.S.2d 978 (1974) (posttrial hearing must be had, wherein evidence should be presented for the record regarding

2005Cf. Childers v. State, 782 So. 2d 513, 518 (Fla. App. 2001) (no formal hearing on the use of physical restraints is necessary, but where there is a total lack of a record, the decision should be remanded for a hearing); see also People v. Williams, 36 A.D.2d 1018 , 321 N.Y.S.2d 463 (1971) (where the facts relevant to the needs of restraint of defendant are not sufficiently developed at trial, a posttrial hearing should be held on that issue); People v. Reingold, 44 A.D.2d 191 , 353 N.Y.S.2d 978 (1974) (posttrial hearing must be had, wherein evidence should be presented for the record regarding

2005Yarbrough, 93 Ill. 2d at 423 .

2005Yarbrough , 93 Ill. 2d at 423 .