pro se posttrial claim in Illinois

2026“The law requires the trial court to conduct some type of inquiry into the underlying factual basis, if any, of a defendant’s pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 79 .

2025Instead, the trial court must first “conduct some type of inquiry into the underlying factual basis, if any, of a defendant’s pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68, 79 (2003).

2026The trial court noted that although the defendant apologized in his statement in allocution, he took no responsibility in his prior statement and instead accused Anderson of attempted murder and sexual assault. ¶ 43 Thereafter, the defendant appealed, and this court remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings because the trial court did not, in response to the defendant’s pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, conduct a preliminary inquiry into such allegation pursuant to People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), and its progeny.

2025However, extensive background into the actions of Ritacca and the State during the trial is helpful in evaluating the trial court’s Krankel inquiry. ¶ 37 Pursuant to People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), the following procedure should be followed to determine whether new counsel should be appointed: “[W]hen a defendant presents a pro se posttrial claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, the trial court should first examine the factual basis of the defendant’s claim.

2026Based upon our de novo review, set out below, we also agree that remand is required. ¶ 55 The Krankel procedure “is triggered when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.” People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29 .

2026Specifically, Randle argues that the court’s preliminary Krankel inquiry did 19 1-24-1697 not clearly establish that trial counsel’s failure to discover the fatal issues with Dr. Shima’s opinion prior to trial was not due to possible neglect of the case. ¶ 52 A Krankel hearing should occur “when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.” People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29 .

2025“Rather, ‘[t]he law requires the trial court to conduct some type of inquiry [i.e., a Krankel inquiry] into the underlying factual basis, if any, of a defendant’s pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68, 79 (2003)).

2025“A pro se posttrial claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel is governed by the common law procedure developed from People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), and its progeny.” People v. Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 1 .

2025During a preliminary Krankel inquiry, “a trial court must be able to consider the merits in their entirety when determining whether to appoint new counsel on a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” (Emphasis in original.) Roddis, 2020 IL 124352, ¶ 61 .

2025Id. ¶ 14 When a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the trial court must conduct “some type of inquiry into the underlying factual basis, if any,” of that claim.

2026See Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d at 189 ; People v. Johnson, 159 Ill. 2d 97, 126 (1994); People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68, 77-78 (2003).

2026See People v. Johnson, 159 Ill. 2d 97, 124-25 (1994); People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68, 77-78 (2003).

2018Ayres , 2017 IL 120071 , ¶ 11, 417 Ill.Dec. 580 , 88 N.E.3d 732 ("The common-law procedure, which has evolved from our decision in Krankel , is triggered when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel."); Jolly , 2014 IL 117142 , ¶ 29, 389 Ill.Dec. 101 , 25 N.E.3d 1127 (a Krankel hearing is *675 required "when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel"); People v. Patrick , 2011 IL 111666 , ¶ 32, 355 Ill.Dec. 943 , 960 N.E.2d 1114 ("Following Krankel , this court clarified that newly appointed counsel is

2018Ayres , 2017 IL 120071 , ¶ 11, 417 Ill.Dec. 580 , 88 N.E.3d 732 ("The common-law procedure, which has evolved from our decision in Krankel , is triggered when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel."); Jolly , 2014 IL 117142 , ¶ 29, 389 Ill.Dec. 101 , 25 N.E.3d 1127 (a Krankel hearing is *675 required "when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel"); People v. Patrick , 2011 IL 111666 , ¶ 32, 355 Ill.Dec. 943 , 960 N.E.2d 1114 ("Following Krankel , this court clarified that newly appointed counsel is

2022Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 41 ; see Roddis, 2020 IL 124352, ¶ 34 ; People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶¶ 29, 38 . ¶ 24 “The Krankel procedure ‘is triggered when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.’ ” Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 96 (quoting Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29 ).

2021“In order to trigger the trial court’s duty to conduct a Krankel inquiry, it is the duty of the defendant to bring the pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to the attention of the trial court.” People v. Zirko, 2012 IL App (1st) 092158, ¶ 70 (citing People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 29 ). “ ‘[A] defendant who fails to bring such a claim to the trial court’s attention forfeits [the claim] notwithstanding having presented it in a letter to the court.’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) Id. (quoting People v. Allen, 409 Ill.

2026The procedure “ ‘is intended to promote consideration of pro se ineffective assistance of counsel claims in the trial court and to limit issues on appeal.’ ” Id. ¶ 64 Our supreme court has explained: “New counsel is not automatically appointed in every case when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

2026Id. ¶ 56 When a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the trial court must conduct an inquiry into the factual basis, if any, of the defendant’s claim.

2018Rather, “[t]he law requires the trial court to conduct some type of inquiry into the underlying factual basis, if any, of a defendant’s pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68, 79 (2003); see also People v. Ramey, 152 Ill. 2d 41, 52 (1992); People v. Williams, 147 Ill. 2d 173, 251 (1991); People v. Nitz, 143 Ill. 2d 82, 134 (1991).

2015See Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 80-81 ; People v. Nitz, 143 Ill. 2d 82, 135 (1991). ¶ 29 The common law procedure developed from our decision in Krankel is triggered when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

2020However, should the court “determine[ ] the [defendant’s] claim ‘lacks merit or pertains only to matters of trial strategy,’ the court may deny the claim without appointing new counsel.” Bell, 2018 IL App (4th) 151016, ¶ 35 (quoting Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 78 ). ¶ 12 Though the trial court is not required to automatically appoint new counsel “when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim” of ineffective assistance of counsel (People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29 , 25 N.E.3d 1127 ), it must “ ‘conduct an adequate inquiry ***, that is, inquiry sufficient to determine the factual basis of the c

2020However, should the court “determine[ ] the [defendant’s] claim ‘lacks merit or pertains only to matters of trial strategy,’ the court may deny the claim without appointing new counsel.” Bell, 2018 IL App (4th) 151016, ¶ 35 (quoting Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 78 ). ¶ 12 Though the trial court is not required to automatically appoint new counsel “when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim” of ineffective assistance of counsel (People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29 , 25 N.E.3d 1127 ), it must “ ‘conduct an adequate inquiry ***, that is, inquiry sufficient to determine the factual basis of the c

2021People v. Roddis, 2020 IL 124352, ¶ 34 ; People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 29 ; People v. Williams, 147 Ill. 2d 173, 250-51 (1991) (collecting cases).

2018Rather, “[t]he law requires the trial court to conduct some type of inquiry into the underlying factual basis, if any, of a defendant’s pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68, 79 (2003); see also People v. Ramey, 152 Ill. 2d 41, 52 (1992); People v. Williams, 147 Ill. 2d 173, 251 (1991); People v. Nitz, 143 Ill. 2d 82, 134 (1991).

2021Id. (citing People v. Chapman, 194 Ill. 2d 186, 230 (2000)). ¶ 37 In arriving at its holding in this case, the appellate court observed that numerous courts have misinterpreted how to conduct Krankel hearings and the proper procedures required when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 2018 IL App (4th) 170605, ¶ 43 (“[T]he trial court misunderstood both the purpose of a Krankel hearing and how one should be conducted.

2020Id. (citing People v. Chapman, 194 Ill. 2d 186, 230 (2000)). ¶ 37 In arriving at its holding in this case, the appellate court observed that numerous courts have misinterpreted how to conduct Krankel hearings and the proper procedures required when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 2018 IL App (4th) 170605, ¶ 43 (“[T]he trial court misunderstood both the purpose of a Krankel hearing and how one should be conducted.

2021Manifest error is error that is “clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” People v. Ruiz, 177 Ill. 2d 368, 384-85 (1997). ¶ 117 A common-law procedure has developed following our supreme court’s Krankel decision, and it “is triggered when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.” People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29 .

2020Manifest error is error that is “clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” People v. Ruiz, 177 Ill. 2d 368, 384-85 (1997). ¶ 73 A common-law procedure has developed following our supreme court’s Krankel decision, and it “is triggered when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.” People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29 .

2021Id. (citing People v. Chapman, 194 Ill. 2d 186, 230 (2000)). ¶ 37 In arriving at its holding in this case, the appellate court observed that numerous courts have misinterpreted how to conduct Krankel hearings and the proper procedures required when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 2018 IL App (4th) 170605, ¶ 43 (“[T]he trial court misunderstood both the purpose of a Krankel hearing and how one should be conducted.

2021Id. ¶ 64 We now clarify that Johnson did not establish a framework composed of the four main reasons to deny a defendant’s pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without appointing new counsel.

2025Thus, the court implicitly found there was possible neglect of the case under People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984). 7 See People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29 ; see also In re Johnathan T., 2022 IL 127222, ¶ 24 (noting the Krankel procedure “is triggered when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel”). ¶ 27 Immediately before the resulting hearing, the court noted on the record the pending posttrial motions, including one from Nemzin, several pro se motions from defendant, and the “Amended Motion for New Trial,” filed by defendant’s new postt

2024Id. ¶ 26; In re Johnathan T., 2022 IL 127222, ¶ 23 . ¶ 103 The Krankel procedure begins when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, whether orally, in a letter or note, or in a written motion.

2010People v. Munson, 171 Ill.2d 158, 199 , 215 Ill.Dec. 125 , 662 N.E.2d 1265 (1996); People v. Crane, 145 Ill.2d 520, 533 , 165 Ill.Dec. 703 , 585 N.E.2d 99 (1991). *1181 Instead, when a defendant presents a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the trial court should then examine the factual basis of a defendant's claim.

2010People v. Munson, 171 Ill.2d 158, 199 , 215 Ill.Dec. 125 , 662 N.E.2d 1265 (1996); People v. Crane, 145 Ill.2d 520, 533 , 165 Ill.Dec. 703 , 585 N.E.2d 99 (1991). *1181 Instead, when a defendant presents a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the trial court should then examine the factual basis of a defendant's claim.

2021“In order to trigger the trial court’s duty to conduct a Krankel inquiry, it is the duty of the defendant to bring the pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to the attention of the trial court.” People v. Zirko, 2012 IL App (1st) 092158, ¶ 70 (citing People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 29 ). “ ‘[A] defendant who fails to bring such a claim to the trial court’s attention forfeits [the claim] notwithstanding having presented it in a letter to the court.’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) Id. (quoting People v. Allen, 409 Ill.

2021“In order to trigger the trial court’s duty to conduct a Krankel inquiry, it is the duty of the defendant to bring the pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to the attention of the trial court.” People v. Zirko, 2012 IL App (1st) 092158, ¶ 70 (citing People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 29 ). “ ‘[A] defendant who fails to bring such a claim to the trial court’s attention forfeits [the claim] notwithstanding having presented it in a letter to the court.’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) Id. (quoting People v. Allen, 409 Ill.

2013Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d at 187-89 ; see People v. Taylor, 237 Ill. 2d 68, 75 (2010); People v. Pence, 387 Ill.

2012Krankel, 102 Ill.2d at 187-89 , 80 Ill.Dec. 62 , 464 N.E.2d 1045 ; see People v. Taylor, 237 Ill.2d 68, 75 , 340 Ill.Dec. 161 , 927 N.E.2d 1172 (2010); People v. Pence, 387 Ill.App.3d 989, 994 , 327 Ill.Dec. 409 , 902 N.E.2d 164 (2009).

2006"When a defendant presents a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the operative concern for the reviewing court is whether the trial court conducted an adequate inquiry into the pro se defendant's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel." People v. Young, 341 Ill.App.3d 379, 382 , 275 Ill.Dec. 237 , 792 N.E.2d 468 (2003).

2006“When a defendant presents a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the operative concern for the reviewing court is whether the trial court conducted an adequate inquiry into the pro se defendant’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v. Young, 341 Ill.

2021“In order to trigger the trial court’s duty to conduct a Krankel inquiry, it is the duty of the defendant to bring the pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to the attention of the trial court.” People v. Zirko, 2012 IL App (1st) 092158, ¶ 70 (citing People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 29 ). “ ‘[A] defendant who fails to bring such a claim to the trial court’s attention forfeits [the claim] notwithstanding having presented it in a letter to the court.’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) Id. (quoting People v. Allen, 409 Ill.

2021“In order to trigger the trial court’s duty to conduct a Krankel inquiry, it is the duty of the defendant to bring the pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to the attention of the trial court.” People v. Zirko, 2012 IL App (1st) 092158, ¶ 70 (citing People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 29 ). “ ‘[A] defendant who fails to bring such a claim to the trial court’s attention forfeits [the claim] notwithstanding having presented it in a letter to the court.’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) Id. (quoting People v. Allen, 409 Ill.

2018Ayres , 2017 IL 120071 , ¶ 11, 417 Ill.Dec. 580 , 88 N.E.3d 732 ("The common-law procedure, which has evolved from our decision in Krankel , is triggered when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel."); Jolly , 2014 IL 117142 , ¶ 29, 389 Ill.Dec. 101 , 25 N.E.3d 1127 (a Krankel hearing is *675 required "when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel"); People v. Patrick , 2011 IL 111666 , ¶ 32, 355 Ill.Dec. 943 , 960 N.E.2d 1114 ("Following Krankel , this court clarified that newly appointed counsel is

2018Ayres , 2017 IL 120071 , ¶ 11, 417 Ill.Dec. 580 , 88 N.E.3d 732 ("The common-law procedure, which has evolved from our decision in Krankel , is triggered when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel."); Jolly , 2014 IL 117142 , ¶ 29, 389 Ill.Dec. 101 , 25 N.E.3d 1127 (a Krankel hearing is *675 required "when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel"); People v. Patrick , 2011 IL 111666 , ¶ 32, 355 Ill.Dec. 943 , 960 N.E.2d 1114 ("Following Krankel , this court clarified that newly appointed counsel is

2021The Ayres court found a defendant’s “clear claim asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, either orally or in writing, *** is sufficient to trigger the trial court’s duty to conduct a Krankel inquiry.” Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 18 ; see also People v. Thomas, 2017 IL App (4th) 150815, ¶ 26 , 93 N.E.3d 664 (noting “[c]ourts have found a defendant is entitled to a Krankel inquiry when the defendant makes an explicit or ‘clear’ complaint of trial counsel’s performance or ineffective assistance of counsel”).

2021The Ayres court found a defendant’s “clear claim asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, either orally or in writing, *** is sufficient to trigger the trial court’s duty to conduct a Krankel inquiry.” Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 18 ; see also People v. Thomas, 2017 IL App (4th) 150815, ¶ 26 , 93 N.E.3d 664 (noting “[c]ourts have found a defendant is entitled to a Krankel inquiry when the defendant makes an explicit or ‘clear’ complaint of trial counsel’s performance or ineffective assistance of counsel”).