2023 IL App (4th) 220862-U NOTICE FILED This Order was filed under August 10, 2023 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NO. 4-22-0862 Carla Bender not precedent except in the 4th District Appellate limited circumstances allowed IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL under Rule 23(e)(1). OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Woodford County EDWARD E. CLARK, ) No. 18CF207 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Michael L. Stroh, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Harris and Zenoff concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court remanded for a preliminary Krankel hearing on defendant’s postsentencing allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel.
¶2 In October 2021, defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated driving while his license
was revoked (625 ILCS 5/6-303(a) (West 2018)). In May 2022, the trial court sentenced
defendant to five years’ imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argues (1) his trial counsel did not
strictly comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017), (2) his sentence was
excessive, and (3) the trial court erred by not conducting a preliminary Krankel inquiry based on
defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim in his pro se filing on July 29, 2022. See
People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984). We remand for the trial court to
conduct a preliminary Krankel hearing on defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Because we remand for a preliminary Krankel hearing, we decline to address defendant’s
remaining arguments on appeal.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 In January 2019, defendant was charged by indictment with aggravated driving
while his license was revoked, alleging he was driving in December 2018 at a time when his
driver’s license was revoked due to a statutory summary suspension after having been previously
convicted of driving while his license was revoked in August 2018. In October 2021, defendant
entered an open guilty plea to aggravated driving while his license was revoked.
¶5 In November 2021, defendant filed a pro se motion seeking to discharge
appointed counsel. The trial court conducted a preliminary Krankel inquiry. Defendant
complained about insufficient meetings with his trial counsel and being unable to review
discovery. Defendant’s trial counsel recounted discussing discovery with defendant by phone
and in person, including showing video of the traffic stop to defendant. The court declined to
appoint new counsel for defendant, stating the issues presented were matters of trial strategy. The
court admonished defendant on the risks of proceeding pro se and granted defendant’s motion to
discharge appointed counsel.
¶6 In December 2021, defendant filed motions to be discharged from custody, to
dismiss the indictment, and to withdraw his guilty plea. In March 2022, defendant requested
counsel be appointed. Defendant explicitly requested that Andrew Lankton, the Woodford
County public defender, not be appointed to represent him. The trial court explained it could
only appoint the public defender’s office, not specific attorneys to represent him. The court
stated Lankton, as the public defender, decides who from the public defender’s office is assigned
to defendant’s case. The court appointed the public defender’s office to represent defendant.
-2- ¶7 During an April 2022 hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to
withdraw his guilty plea. During a May 2022 hearing, the court denied defendant’s motion to
dismiss the indictment.
¶8 On May 31, 2022, a sentencing hearing was held. The trial court found, in
mitigation, defendant’s conduct did not cause or threaten serious physical harm. The court found
defendant’s extensive criminal history as indicated in the presentence investigation report
required a sentence to deter others. The court also found probation would deprecate the
seriousness of the offense and would be inconsistent with the ends of justice. The court
sentenced defendant to five years in prison.
¶9 Defendant subsequently filed pro se documents on June 6, 2022, and June 27,
2022, and a pro se motion to reconsider his sentence and vacate the judgment on July 29, 2022.
The June 6, 2022, filing stated defendant wanted counsel appointed to help raise issues with his
sentence and withdraw his plea of guilty. The June 27, 2022, filing reiterated defendant’s request
for counsel and transcripts. Defendant’s pro se motion from July 29, 2022, argued (1) ineffective
assistance of counsel, (2) a violation of his right to counsel, (3) a due process violation, and
(4) for a reduction of his sentence.
¶ 10 At the hearing on defendant’s motion, trial counsel stated he did not amend
defendant’s pro se motion because he would not have included all of the issues defendant
included, so he “elected to stay with [defendant’s] motion so that all of the issues [defendant]
wished to have presented to the court would actually be there.” Defendant, through counsel, first
argued he was denied his right to counsel of his choosing because he did not want Public
Defender Lankton to represent him. Defendant argued the indictment specifically cited a
misdemeanor offense section of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/6-303(a) (West 2018)),
-3- thereby requiring a reduced sentence. Defendant also argued he was denied the right to a fair
trial.
¶ 11 The trial court noted much of defendant’s motion was similar to what defendant
argued in his previous motions to dismiss the indictment and withdraw his guilty plea. The court
stated defendant’s motion did not address the statutory factors in aggravation or mitigation. The
court also stated it reviewed the transcripts and its notes from the sentencing hearing and denied
defendant’s motion.
¶ 12 This appeal followed.
¶ 13 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 14 On appeal, defendant argues (1) his trial counsel did not strictly comply with Rule
604(d), (2) his sentence was excessive, and (3) the trial court erred by not conducting a
preliminary Krankel inquiry based on defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim in his
July 29, 2022, pro se filing. We agree with defendant’s third contention and remand for a
preliminary Krankel inquiry.
¶ 15 When a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial
counsel, a Krankel inquiry is required. People v. Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 11, 88 N.E.3d 732. A
pro se defendant is required to do nothing more than bring his ineffective assistance claim to the
trial court’s attention. Id. A defendant’s bare assertion of “ineffective assistance of counsel” is
sufficient to trigger a Krankel inquiry. Id. ¶ 21.
¶ 16 An adequate inquiry may include “(1) questioning the trial counsel,
(2) questioning the defendant, [or] (3) relying on [the trial court’s] own knowledge of the trial
counsel’s performance.” People v. Peacock, 359 Ill. App. 3d 326, 339, 833 N.E.2d 396, 407
(2005). “If the court determines that the claim lacks merit or pertains only to matters of trial
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2023 IL App (4th) 220862-U NOTICE FILED This Order was filed under August 10, 2023 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NO. 4-22-0862 Carla Bender not precedent except in the 4th District Appellate limited circumstances allowed IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL under Rule 23(e)(1). OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Woodford County EDWARD E. CLARK, ) No. 18CF207 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Michael L. Stroh, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Harris and Zenoff concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court remanded for a preliminary Krankel hearing on defendant’s postsentencing allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel.
¶2 In October 2021, defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated driving while his license
was revoked (625 ILCS 5/6-303(a) (West 2018)). In May 2022, the trial court sentenced
defendant to five years’ imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argues (1) his trial counsel did not
strictly comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017), (2) his sentence was
excessive, and (3) the trial court erred by not conducting a preliminary Krankel inquiry based on
defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim in his pro se filing on July 29, 2022. See
People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984). We remand for the trial court to
conduct a preliminary Krankel hearing on defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Because we remand for a preliminary Krankel hearing, we decline to address defendant’s
remaining arguments on appeal.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 In January 2019, defendant was charged by indictment with aggravated driving
while his license was revoked, alleging he was driving in December 2018 at a time when his
driver’s license was revoked due to a statutory summary suspension after having been previously
convicted of driving while his license was revoked in August 2018. In October 2021, defendant
entered an open guilty plea to aggravated driving while his license was revoked.
¶5 In November 2021, defendant filed a pro se motion seeking to discharge
appointed counsel. The trial court conducted a preliminary Krankel inquiry. Defendant
complained about insufficient meetings with his trial counsel and being unable to review
discovery. Defendant’s trial counsel recounted discussing discovery with defendant by phone
and in person, including showing video of the traffic stop to defendant. The court declined to
appoint new counsel for defendant, stating the issues presented were matters of trial strategy. The
court admonished defendant on the risks of proceeding pro se and granted defendant’s motion to
discharge appointed counsel.
¶6 In December 2021, defendant filed motions to be discharged from custody, to
dismiss the indictment, and to withdraw his guilty plea. In March 2022, defendant requested
counsel be appointed. Defendant explicitly requested that Andrew Lankton, the Woodford
County public defender, not be appointed to represent him. The trial court explained it could
only appoint the public defender’s office, not specific attorneys to represent him. The court
stated Lankton, as the public defender, decides who from the public defender’s office is assigned
to defendant’s case. The court appointed the public defender’s office to represent defendant.
-2- ¶7 During an April 2022 hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to
withdraw his guilty plea. During a May 2022 hearing, the court denied defendant’s motion to
dismiss the indictment.
¶8 On May 31, 2022, a sentencing hearing was held. The trial court found, in
mitigation, defendant’s conduct did not cause or threaten serious physical harm. The court found
defendant’s extensive criminal history as indicated in the presentence investigation report
required a sentence to deter others. The court also found probation would deprecate the
seriousness of the offense and would be inconsistent with the ends of justice. The court
sentenced defendant to five years in prison.
¶9 Defendant subsequently filed pro se documents on June 6, 2022, and June 27,
2022, and a pro se motion to reconsider his sentence and vacate the judgment on July 29, 2022.
The June 6, 2022, filing stated defendant wanted counsel appointed to help raise issues with his
sentence and withdraw his plea of guilty. The June 27, 2022, filing reiterated defendant’s request
for counsel and transcripts. Defendant’s pro se motion from July 29, 2022, argued (1) ineffective
assistance of counsel, (2) a violation of his right to counsel, (3) a due process violation, and
(4) for a reduction of his sentence.
¶ 10 At the hearing on defendant’s motion, trial counsel stated he did not amend
defendant’s pro se motion because he would not have included all of the issues defendant
included, so he “elected to stay with [defendant’s] motion so that all of the issues [defendant]
wished to have presented to the court would actually be there.” Defendant, through counsel, first
argued he was denied his right to counsel of his choosing because he did not want Public
Defender Lankton to represent him. Defendant argued the indictment specifically cited a
misdemeanor offense section of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/6-303(a) (West 2018)),
-3- thereby requiring a reduced sentence. Defendant also argued he was denied the right to a fair
trial.
¶ 11 The trial court noted much of defendant’s motion was similar to what defendant
argued in his previous motions to dismiss the indictment and withdraw his guilty plea. The court
stated defendant’s motion did not address the statutory factors in aggravation or mitigation. The
court also stated it reviewed the transcripts and its notes from the sentencing hearing and denied
defendant’s motion.
¶ 12 This appeal followed.
¶ 13 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 14 On appeal, defendant argues (1) his trial counsel did not strictly comply with Rule
604(d), (2) his sentence was excessive, and (3) the trial court erred by not conducting a
preliminary Krankel inquiry based on defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim in his
July 29, 2022, pro se filing. We agree with defendant’s third contention and remand for a
preliminary Krankel inquiry.
¶ 15 When a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial
counsel, a Krankel inquiry is required. People v. Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, ¶ 11, 88 N.E.3d 732. A
pro se defendant is required to do nothing more than bring his ineffective assistance claim to the
trial court’s attention. Id. A defendant’s bare assertion of “ineffective assistance of counsel” is
sufficient to trigger a Krankel inquiry. Id. ¶ 21.
¶ 16 An adequate inquiry may include “(1) questioning the trial counsel,
(2) questioning the defendant, [or] (3) relying on [the trial court’s] own knowledge of the trial
counsel’s performance.” People v. Peacock, 359 Ill. App. 3d 326, 339, 833 N.E.2d 396, 407
(2005). “If the court determines that the claim lacks merit or pertains only to matters of trial
-4- strategy, then the court need not appoint new counsel and may deny the pro se motion.” People
v. Roddis, 2020 IL 124352, ¶ 35, 161 N.E.3d 173. “However, if the allegations show possible
neglect of the case, new counsel should be appointed.” Id. We review de novo whether the trial
court properly conducted a preliminary Krankel inquiry. People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 28,
25 N.E.3d 1127.
¶ 17 Here, defendant clearly raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in his
pro se July 29, 2022, filing. Defendant stated he wished to bring up “ineffective [sic] of my
appointed counsel” and requested new counsel be appointed to inquire into the facts of the case
and the motion to reconsider defendant was filing. The State argues defendant’s filing was not
sufficient to trigger a Krankel inquiry because it sought to repeat defendant’s previously litigated
arguments, including issues from the trial court’s previous Krankel inquiry. Defendant argues the
timing of his ineffective assistance claim is critical because his second ineffective assistance
claim occurred after sentencing. We agree.
¶ 18 Defendant raised his second ineffective assistance claim postsentencing in his
pro se motion to reconsider his sentence filed on July 29, 2022. See People v. Bailey, 364 Ill.
App. 3d 404, 408, 846 N.E.2d 147, 150 (2006) (holding “a motion to reconsider sentence is a
critical stage of the criminal proceeding”). Counsel for defendant argued defendant’s pro se
motion to reconsider his sentence before the trial court but did not mention the ineffective
assistance claim stated in the motion. The court did not inquire with defendant about his
ineffective assistance claim. The court’s failure to conduct any inquiry to determine the
underlying factual basis of defendant’s ineffective assistance claim was error.
¶ 19 Because we conclude a Krankel inquiry is required, we need not consider
defendant’s other arguments on appeal at this time. See People v. Bell, 2018 IL App (4th)
-5- 151016, ¶ 37, 100 N.E.3d 177 (“Depending on the result of the preliminary Krankel inquiry,
defendant’s other claims may become moot.”). While we remand for further proceedings on
defendant’s ineffective assistance claim, we retain jurisdiction over defendant’s remaining
claims. People v. Wilson, 2019 IL App (4th) 180214, ¶ 26, 137 N.E.3d 868. If “defendant is not
satisfied with the outcome of the proceedings on remand, he may again appeal and raise any
supplementary claims relating to the remand proceedings, and the State may have an opportunity
to respond to those claims.” Id.
¶ 20 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 21 For the reasons stated, we remand with directions for the trial court to conduct a
preliminary Krankel hearing on the alleged issues of ineffective assistance of counsel defendant
raised in his July 29, 2022, motion to reconsider his sentence.
¶ 22 Remanded with directions.
-6-