People v. Blankenship , 2020 IL App (3d) 180297-U ( 2020 )

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as
precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
2020 IL App (3d) 180297-UOrder filed November 19, 2020
____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2020
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) of the 12th Judicial Circuit,
) Will County, Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Appeal No. 3-18-0297
v. ) Circuit No. 16-CF-1878
)
LEE E. BLANKENSHIP, ) Honorable
) Daniel Rippy,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE O’BRIEN delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Carter and Holdridge concurred in the judgment.
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: The court conducted an adequate Krankel inquiry by questioning defendant and
counsel regarding defendant’s ineffective assistance claims, in addition to relying
on its observation of counsel’s trial performance.
¶2 Defendant, Lee E. Blankenship, appeals the Will County circuit court’s holding that his
ineffective assistance of counsel claims did not meet the threshold necessary to warrant the
appointment of new counsel, arguing that the Krankel inquiry was inadequate because the court
failed to question defendant or counsel about counsel’s failure to call an allegedly exculpatory
witness and present evidence that defendant was not the leaseholder of the apartment in question.
We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 The State charged defendant with unlawful possession of a controlled substance (720 ILCS
570/402(c) (West 2016)), alleging that defendant knowingly and unlawfully possessed cocaine.
¶5 The evidence established that officers arrested defendant following the execution of a
search warrant at 514 South Eastern Avenue in Joliet. The complaint for the warrant alleged that
defendant was involved in two controlled drug buys at that address in the previous week. Officers
found no contraband on defendant at the time of the arrest, but they found a duffle bag containing
a pair of jeans with 0.2 grams of a white powdery substance in one of the pockets. The duffle bag
also contained a wallet with defendant’s state identification (ID) card.
¶6 During a jury trial, three officers testified to their involvement in the case and a forensic
scientist testified that the substance found in the jeans tested positive for cocaine. When defense
counsel cross-examined one officer about whether defendant was on the lease or paid the bills for
the apartment in question, the officer testified that he did not know. When the trial concluded, the
jury found defendant guilty of unlawful possession of a controlled substance.
¶7 Defendant filed, as a self-represented litigant, a motion for a new trial, alleging, inter alia,
that he received ineffective assistance when counsel failed to (1) object to the State’s misstatement
of the facts during rebuttal argument, (2) explain why defendant’s mail was at the apartment in
question, as he did not reside there, (3) call an allegedly exculpatory witness to testify, and
(4) impeach the State’s witnesses.
¶8 The court conducted a Krankel hearing and invited defendant to list each instance of alleged
ineffective assistance. Defendant stated that counsel did not subpoena information regarding two
2
testifying officers who were part of an unrelated case involving falsified drug test results. Counsel
informed the court that she investigated this claim and discovered the laboratory technician
falsified the results, not the officers. Defendant told the court he wanted counsel to call every
officer involved in his arrest. He argued that counsel should have presented evidence that
defendant was not the leaseholder of the apartment, to which the court responded that counsel
established that point on cross-examination. Defendant also argued that counsel should have called
a specific witness to explain why defendant’s ID card was found in the apartment. Defendant
insisted that counsel should have objected when the State misstated evidence during rebuttal
argument. The court responded that it would have told the jury that closing arguments are not
evidence. Additionally, defendant wanted counsel to file a motion to suppress, but the court
explained that there was nothing to suppress because the officers found nothing on him during the
arrest, nor did he make any statements. Finally, defendant argued that counsel was ineffective
because she did not appear at several of defendant’s court dates and asked for multiple
continuances. When defendant finished, he said, “I have been fully heard.”
¶9 Relying on defendant’s statements, counsel’s explanation regarding her investigation, and
its own observations of counsel’s trial performance, the court concluded that defendant had not
met the threshold necessary to warrant the appointment of new counsel, finding most of his claims
to be matters of trial strategy. The court sentenced defendant to the agreed upon two years’
imprisonment, with credit for time served in pretrial custody. Defendant appeals.
¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 11 Defendant argues the court’s Krankel inquiry was inadequate because the court failed to
question defendant or counsel about counsel’s failure to call an allegedly exculpatory witness and
present evidence that defendant was not the leaseholder of the apartment in question. We disagree.
3
The court made a sufficient inquiry into the factual basis of defendant’s ineffective assistance
claims, and properly relied on defendant’s and counsel’s statements, as well as its observations of
counsel’s trial performance, when making its determination.
¶ 12 When a defendant raises, as a self-represented litigant, a posttrial ineffective assistance of
counsel claim, the circuit court conducts a preliminary Krankel inquiry into the claim’s factual
basis. People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29. A Krankel inquiry “facilitate[s] the trial court’s full
consideration of a defendant’s pro se claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and thereby
potentially limit issues on appeal.” Id. A proper Krankel hearing has two steps: “(1) understanding
the defendant’s claims and (2) evaluating them for potential merit.” People v. Mays, 2012 IL App
(4th) 090840, ¶ 58. “If the trial 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. However, if the allegations show possible neglect of the case, new counsel should be
appointed.” People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68, 78 (2003).
¶ 13 On appeal, “[t]he operative concern for the reviewing court is whether the trial court
conducted an adequate inquiry into the defendant’s pro se allegations of ineffective assistance of
counsel.” Id. “The issue of whether the circuit court properly conducted a preliminary Krankel
inquiry presents a legal question that we review de novo.” Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 28.
¶ 14 During a Krankel inquiry, a court need not question a defendant or counsel regarding every
ineffective assistance claim made; instead, a court must “conduct some type of inquiry into the
underlying factual basis” of the defendant’s claims. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 79. This can be “some
interchange between the trial court and trial counsel regarding the facts and circumstances
surrounding the allegedly ineffective representation” or “[a] brief discussion between the trial
court and the defendant.” Id. at 78. A court can also “base its evaluation *** on its knowledge of
4
defense counsel’s performance at trial and the insufficiency of the defendant’s allegations on their
face.” Id. at 79.
¶ 15 Here, the court heard defendant list each instance of alleged ineffective assistance,
questioned counsel regarding defendant’s claim that the testifying officers falsified evidence, and
relied on its own trial observations, where counsel cross-examined an officer about the fact that
defendant did not live in the apartment. The court was not required to question defendant or
counsel about the two specific claims defendant highlights on appeal, as they raised issues of trial
strategy that “ultimately rest with trial counsel” and are “generally immune from claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v. Wilborn, 2011 IL App (1st) 092802, ¶ 79. From our
review of the record, the court conducted a sufficient Krankel inquiry and properly held that
defendant failed to meet the requisite threshold to warrant the appointment of new counsel, as
defendant’s claims pertained to matters of trial strategy. See Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 78.
¶ 16 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 17 The judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed.
¶ 18 Affirmed.
5