pro se ineffective assistance claim in Illinois

2025People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68, 77 (2003).

2023See Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 79 (recognizing that a trial court may base its evaluation of a pro se ineffective assistance claim on “the insufficiency of the defendant’s allegations on their face”).

2019However, if the allegations show possible neglect of the case, new counsel should be appointed.” (Internal quotations marks omitted.) Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 11 . ¶ 64 It bears mentioning that the purpose of appointing counsel pursuant to Krankel is for new counsel to investigate the defendant’s pro se claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel—not to pursue other claims of error, like those commonly raised in posttrial motions. ¶ 65 Although courts have not clearly defined when a pro se ineffective assistance claim “lacks merit,” the supreme court, in People v. Johnson, 159 Ill. 2d 97

2019However, if the allegations show possible neglect of the case, new counsel should be appointed.” (Internal quotations marks omitted.) Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 11 . ¶ 64 It bears mentioning that the purpose of appointing counsel pursuant to Krankel is for new counsel to investigate the defendant’s pro se claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel—not to pursue other claims of error, like those commonly raised in posttrial motions. ¶ 65 Although courts have not clearly defined when a pro se ineffective assistance claim “lacks merit,” the supreme court, in People v. Johnson, 159 Ill. 2d 97

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

2020See, e.g., People v. Enis, 194 Ill. 2d 361, 380 (2000) (“[a] claim that trial counsel failed to investigate and call a witness must be supported by an affidavit from the proposed witness. [Citations.] In the absence of such an affidavit, a reviewing court cannot determine whether the proposed witness could have provided testimony or information favorable to the [petitioner], and further review of the claim is - 23 - 2018 IL App (2d) 180764-U unnecessary”; however, further holding that, even if evidence had been considered in lieu of affidavit, outcome would not have been different, because the

2020See, e.g., People v. Enis, 194 Ill. 2d 361, 380 (2000) (“[a] claim that trial counsel failed to investigate and call a witness must be supported by an affidavit from the proposed witness. [Citations.] In the absence of such an affidavit, a reviewing court cannot determine whether the proposed witness could have provided testimony or information favorable to the [petitioner], and further review of the claim is - 23 - 2018 IL App (2d) 180764-U unnecessary”; however, further holding that, even if evidence had been considered in lieu of affidavit, outcome would not have been different, because the

2020See, e.g., People v. Enis, 194 Ill. 2d 361, 380 (2000) (“[a] claim that trial counsel failed to investigate and call a witness must be supported by an affidavit from the proposed witness. [Citations.] In the absence of such an affidavit, a reviewing court cannot determine whether the proposed witness could have provided testimony or information favorable to the [petitioner], and further review of the claim is - 23 - 2018 IL App (2d) 180764-U unnecessary”; however, further holding that, even if evidence had been considered in lieu of affidavit, outcome would not have been different, because the