People v. Brown ( 2022 )

NOTICE
This Order was filed under 2022 IL App (4th) 210168-UFILED
July 5, 2022
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
Carla Bender
not precedent except in the NO. 4-21-0168
4th District Appellate
limited circumstances allowed
Court, IL
under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of
v. ) Champaign County
KYDEL J. BROWN, ) No. 17CF479
Defendant-Appellant. )
) Honorable
) Roger B. Webber,
) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices DeArmond and Turner concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court reversed and remanded for a preliminary Krankel inquiry,
concluding the trial court failed to conduct a proper inquiry when it neglected to
question trial counsel regarding defendant’s claim counsel failed to investigate his
codefendant as a potential witness.
¶2 Defendant, Kydel J. Brown, appeals from the Champaign County circuit court’s
judgment finding the appointment of new counsel was not warranted and defendant’s sentence
was not excessive. Specifically, defendant argues the trial court (1) failed to conduct a proper
inquiry into one of defendant’s pro se claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and
(2) abused its discretion in sentencing defendant to 38 years in prison for armed robbery in light
of his age, history, and the nature of the offense. The State concedes the trial court failed to
conduct a proper inquiry under People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), and agrees this court
should reverse and remand. We accept the State’s concession and reverse and remand for a new
preliminary Krankel inquiry.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 A. Conviction and Direct Appeal
¶5 This court previously discussed the underlying facts in this case on direct appeal.
People v. Brown, 2020 IL App (4th) 180069-U, ¶¶ 6-48. Accordingly, we discuss only those
facts necessary to resolve the issue presented in this appeal.
¶6 Following an August 2017 jury trial, defendant was found guilty of armed
robbery, a Class X felony (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2) (West 2016)), and sentenced to 38 years in
prison. Defendant then pro se filed a letter with the trial court, alleging his trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to call certain witnesses and object to certain evidence. Specifically,
defendant alleged trial counsel failed to investigate or present testimony from Kelvin Hartfield
(his codefendant), Vanishia Hunt, Veon Hunt, Kathy Barker, and Marcus Craig, all of whom
could have potentially provided alibi testimony. Defendant additionally alleged trial counsel
failed to object at trial to Susan Chapin’s reading of witness Tierycka Wiley’s prior testimony at
Hartfield’s trial.
¶7 In October 2017, the trial court conducted a Krankel inquiry in which neither
defendant nor trial counsel were afforded an opportunity to speak about defendant’s allegations,
and the court determined the appointment of new defense counsel was not necessary. Defendant
appealed, arguing the trial court failed to conduct a proper Krankel inquiry and his sentence was
excessive. Brown, 2020 IL App (4th) 180069-U, ¶ 4. This court agreed the trial court failed to
conduct a proper Krankel inquiry and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Id. ¶ 1.
-2-
Because this court reversed and remanded, it did not address defendant’s excessive sentence
claim. Id. ¶ 66.
¶8 B. Remand Hearing
¶9 In March 2021, the trial court conducted a new Krankel inquiry with a different
judge presiding.
¶ 10 1. Defendant
¶ 11 The court first allowed defendant to elaborate on his pro se allegations of
ineffective assistance, and defendant reiterated his belief his trial counsel, Stephanie Corum,
failed to investigate or interview five potential alibi witnesses. The court then went down
defendant’s list of witnesses one by one, allowing defendant to explain what testimony they
could have provided. Beginning with his codefendant, Kelvin Hartfield, defendant agreed with
the trial court’s statement that it was defendant’s belief Hartfield would have testified defendant
was not present during the armed robbery. Immediately after the court’s statement, it inquired
about the remaining witnesses. Defendant stated Vanishia Hunt, Veon Hunt, and Marcus Craig
would have testified defendant was at his own home during the time of the alleged offense and
therefore could not have participated. Defendant informed Corum of these potential witnesses
but claimed she failed to contact them.
¶ 12 2. Stephanie Corum
¶ 13 The court then allowed Corum to respond to defendant’s allegations. Corum went
through several of defendant’s potential witnesses and explained why she did not contact them or
call them to testify.
¶ 14 Corum stated she did not call Vanishia Hunt because Vanishia had previously
given a statement to police that she got home at 10:30 p.m. the night of the armed robbery and
-3-
did not see defendant at all. Because this was inconsistent with the testimony defendant believed
she could provide—which was that she saw defendant come home around 11 p.m.—Corum
believed Vanishia would not have been a helpful alibi witness.
¶ 15 Corum further explained she had represented Veon Hunt in a juvenile
delinquency proceeding around the same time she represented defendant and, during this time,
Veon indicated he “did not want to be involved” with defendant’s case and that he “didn’t know
anything about what happened.” Based on these statements, Corum did not believe he could
provide useful trial testimony.
¶ 16 Regarding Marcus Craig, Corum recalled that Craig “also had made a statement
to police that *** led me to believe that if he came out and said that he actually saw [defendant]
between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. that it would be contradicted by his original statement to
law enforcement.”
¶ 17 Corum also stated that, prior to trial, she had a conversation with defendant and
the public defender’s office investigator, Steve Guess, during which defendant indicated he “no
longer wanted to put his family in the position of having to say things *** about his
whereabouts.” Corum continued, “[S]o it wasn’t that the alibi defense was completely abandoned
at that point[,] but he did indicate that he no longer wanted us to continue to investigate
witnesses.”
¶ 18 As to the claim regarding Susan Chapin’s reading of Tierykah Wiley’s prior
testimony during defendant’s trial, Corum explained as follows:
“Ms. Chapin did not testify. She merely read a transcript from [Hartfield’s] trial.
We actually conducted a hearing outside the presence of the jury where
Ms. Wiley came in. She—her testimony was essentially going sideways for the
-4-
State’s Attorney’s office. We conducted that hearing outside the presence of the
jury as we were supposed to. We brought the jury back in. Ms. Wiley was then
asked a series of questions by the State and then by myself. She ended up going
sideways on both of us and so—and by sideways, I’m sorry, your Honor, I’m
using loose language. However, she ended up testifying inconsistently with prior
testimony. She was then impeached with that testimony, and in order for the jury
to have more diverse voices Mr. Lozar read the questions, Ms. Chapin would
respond in Ms. Wiley’s voice so that the jury could have a more well-rounded
impression of what was happening.”
Defendant then brought up once again his concerns regarding Corum’s failure to present
testimony from Marcus Craig and referred the court to Craig’s affidavit. Craig averred he had
seen defendant before the alleged crime occurred and there “was no way he could have been
present at the scene of the crime.” In response, Corum stated Craig had previously given a
statement to police in which he indicated he did not “know the times [defendant] was home or
gone from the residence” on the evening of the alleged robbery. The court then inquired of
Corum, “[S]o if I understand you[,] even if Mr. Craig would have testified at trial that
[defendant] was home all night[,] that would have been impeached by his statements to police
and for that reason you chose not to present it?” Corum responded affirmatively.
¶ 19 The court did not inquire of Corum as to why she did not call defendant’s
codefendant, Hartfield, as a witness, and Corum did not volunteer any explanation regarding that
witness.
¶ 20 At the conclusion of the hearing, the court indicated it had reviewed defendant’s
written correspondence outlining his claims of ineffective assistance and had discussed those
-5-
claims with defendant and Corum. The court concluded Corum had presented a sound strategic
decision for each alleged act of ineffective assistance. Accordingly, it concluded defendant had
not raised any claim indicating Corum’s possible neglect of defendant’s case and therefore the
appointment of counsel to pursue those claims further was not warranted.
¶ 21 This appeal followed.
¶ 22 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 23 On appeal, the parties agree this court should reverse and remand for further
proceedings because the trial court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry under Krankel when it
neglected to question Corum regarding defendant’s claim Kelvin Hartfield could have testified
defendant did not commit the offense in this case. We agree and reverse and remand for further
proceedings.
¶ 24 When a defendant pro se raises a posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial
counsel, Illinois courts follow the procedure as it has evolved from Krankel. People v. Ayres,
2017 IL 120071, ¶ 11. “The trial court must conduct an adequate inquiry into allegations of
ineffective assistance of counsel, that is, inquiry sufficient to determine the factual basis of the
claim.” People v. Banks, 237 Ill. 2d 154, 213 (2010). “[A] trial court’s method of inquiry at a
[preliminary] Krankel hearing is somewhat flexible.” People v. Flemming, 2015 IL App (1st)
111925-B, ¶ 85. Ordinarily, an adequate inquiry may include “(1) questioning the trial counsel,
(2) questioning the defendant, [or] (3) relying on its own knowledge of the trial counsel’s
performance in the trial.” People v. Peacock, 359 Ill. App. 3d 326, 339 (2005). “[W]here alibi
witnesses are concerned, a court conducting a preliminary investigation under Krankel ought to
inquire into matters such as the identities of the witnesses, the substance of their proposed
-6-
testimony, and the extent to which defendant’s counsel knew and acted upon the existence of
such witnesses.” People v. McCarter, 385 Ill. App. 3d 919, 942 (2008).
¶ 25 “If the court determines that the claim lacks merit or pertains only to matters of
trial strategy, then the court need not appoint new counsel and may deny the pro se motion.
[Citation.] However, if the allegations show possible neglect of the case, new counsel should be
appointed.” People v. Roddis, 2020 IL 124352, ¶ 35 (citing People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68, 78
(2003)). We review de novo whether the trial court properly conducted a preliminary Krankel
inquiry. People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 28.
¶ 26 The parties agree this case is analogous to People v. Barnes, 364 Ill. App. 3d 888(2006). In Barnes, the defendant alleged during his sentencing hearing that his trial attorneys
were ineffective when they failed to provide him with transcripts he requested and did not
investigate certain alibi witnesses. Id. at 892. Without inquiring of the defendant’s attorneys, the
trial court concluded the defendant’s allegations were between the defendant and his attorneys,
and that because “nothing was ever brought to [the court’s] attention *** that work was not
being done,” the defendant’s allegations pertained to matters of trial strategy. Id. at 893. On
appeal, the First District held the trial court’s inquiry into the defendant’s allegations did not
comport with Krankel because in its “brief conclusory review,” it failed to inquire “into the
substance” of the defendant’s allegations and “summarily rejected” them without any inquiry
into the specifics. Id. at 899.
¶ 27 In this case, although the trial court’s inquiry was otherwise diligent, it failed to
comport with Krankel when it did not inquire into the specifics of defendant’s allegation that
trial counsel failed to investigate his codefendant and obtain his trial testimony. While
questioning defendant regarding his list of potential witnesses, the trial court asked defendant
-7-
just one question concerning his codefendant: “And [Kelvin Hartfield] would have testified—
you believe he would have testified you were not an accomplice to the crime?” To which
defendant responded, “Yes, sir.” The court immediately inquired regarding the next witness
without any further explanation of the contents of Hartfield’s testimony or how defendant knew
Hartfield would be willing to testify on defendant’s behalf. Moreover, the trial court heard no
response from trial counsel regarding this allegation. We emphasize that the trial judge who
conducted the inquiry here was not the same judge who presided over defendant’s trial, and thus,
the trial court could not have concluded defendant’s allegation was merely a matter of trial
strategy in the absence of any explanation from trial counsel to support such a conclusion.
Because the trial court’s “brief conclusory review” of this particular claim fell short of the
factual assessment it was required to perform, we remand for a preliminary Krankel inquiry into
defendant’s claim his counsel failed to investigate his codefendant, Kelvin Hartfield, and obtain
his trial testimony. See id. at 899.
¶ 28 Given our reversal on the Krankel issue, we again decline to address defendant’s
excessive sentence claim as it may become moot depending upon the outcome of
defendant’s Krankel hearing. We offer no opinion on the merits of defendant’s ineffective
assistance of trial counsel claim.
¶ 29 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 30 For the reasons stated, consistent with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(b) (eff. Jan.
1, 2021), we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.
¶ 31 Reversed and remanded.
-8-