Background
Robert A. Branham was convicted by a jury of five counts of criminal sexual assault. In an earlier direct appeal, the appellate court rejected his speedy-trial, sufficiency-of-the-evidence, and plain-error arguments but remanded for a preliminary inquiry under People v. Krankel into his pro se posttrial allegations that trial counsel was ineffective.
On remand, Branham alleged several deficiencies, including failures to object to other-crimes evidence, request a limiting instruction, investigate potential witnesses, and pursue medical evidence. He asserted that counsel did not subpoena a nurse examiner whose evidence counsel had suggested might favor the defense. After questioning Branham, the circuit court concluded that his allegations were speculative, conclusory, or concerned trial strategy and declined to appoint independent counsel.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court held that the circuit court conducted an adequate preliminary Krankel inquiry because it allowed Branham to explain his complaints, asked follow-up questions, and considered his explanations. The circuit court nevertheless manifestly erred by concluding that none of the allegations demonstrated possible neglect of the case.
At least one allegation required appointment of independent counsel. Trial counsel had obtained repeated continuances to investigate the medical evidence, indicated that the nurse examiner’s report might help the defense, identified the examiner as a witness, and said compulsory process might be necessary. Yet counsel did not subpoena her, and no medical testimony was presented at trial. On this record, the failure to subpoena the examiner could not necessarily be characterized as trial strategy rather than a failure to complete the contemplated investigation. The appellate court reversed and remanded with directions to appoint independent counsel, without deciding whether counsel was ineffective.
Key Takeaways
- The preliminary Krankel inquiry was procedurally adequate, but the decision not to appoint independent counsel was manifestly erroneous.
- Counsel’s uncompleted pursuit of potentially favorable medical evidence demonstrated possible neglect sufficient to require independent counsel on this record.
- On remand, appointed counsel may investigate, amend, supplement, or abandon Branham’s claims as counsel considers appropriate; the appellate court expressed no view on their ultimate merits.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the limited screening function of a preliminary Krankel inquiry. A defendant need not establish ineffective assistance at that stage; an allegation showing possible neglect of the case is enough to require independent counsel.
The decision is an unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).