Background
A jury found Deangelo Owens guilty of attempted first-degree murder, two counts of home invasion, and robbery arising from two incidents on August 27, 2014. The evidence showed that Owens entered a home with a codefendant, fought with the occupants, took the codefendant’s firearm, and shot Jason Scott in the arm and leg. Later that evening, Owens and the codefendant robbed Terrence Marshall.
After trial, Owens filed a pro se motion under People v. Krankel alleging that trial counsel had been ineffective in several respects, including failing to investigate witnesses, challenge the charges, and address allegedly sleeping jurors. The circuit court conducted a preliminary inquiry and denied the motion without appointing new counsel. It later imposed consecutive sentences totaling 65 years: 31 years each for attempted murder and the surviving home-invasion count, including a 25-year firearm enhancement on each, plus three years for robbery.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court held that the circuit court properly limited the Krankel proceeding to a preliminary inquiry. The judge was permitted to question Owens and trial counsel, rely on her recollection of the trial, and assess whether the allegations lacked merit or concerned trial strategy. The proceeding did not become an adversarial evidentiary hearing requiring appointment of new counsel, and Owens did not demonstrate possible neglect of the case.
The court held that Owens forfeited his challenge to the 25-year firearm enhancement for home invasion by failing to object and preserve the issue in a postsentencing motion. Because he expressly declined to seek plain-error review, the court honored the procedural default and did not reach the merits of that challenge.
The court also upheld the consecutive sentences. Although a jury finding of “great bodily harm” does not necessarily establish “severe bodily injury,” the record showed that the sentencing judge independently found severe bodily injury. That finding was supported by evidence that Scott was shot twice and hospitalized for approximately a month, making consecutive sentencing mandatory.
Key Takeaways
- A preliminary Krankel inquiry may include questioning the defendant and trial counsel and evaluating the factual and legal merits of the defendant’s allegations.
- A sentencing challenge is forfeited when the defendant fails to object and include the issue in a written postsentencing motion; a defendant who does not request plain-error review cannot meet the burden for that exception.
- In the First District, “severe bodily injury” requires more than “great bodily harm,” but the sentencing judge may make the necessary factual finding for mandatory consecutive sentences.
Why It Matters
The order clarifies the permissible scope of an Illinois trial court’s preliminary Krankel inquiry and underscores that detailed questioning does not automatically transform the proceeding into a full evidentiary hearing requiring appointed counsel.
It also illustrates the importance of preserving sentencing objections and confirms that a trial judge’s adequately supported severe-bodily-injury finding can require consecutive sentences. The order was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).