2020 IL App (4th) 180340-U 

NO. 4-18-0340 

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JONATHAN A. CHAMBERS, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of 

Livingston County 

No. 16CF298 

Honorable 

Jennifer H. Bauknecht, 

Judge Presiding. 

 JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court.

 Presiding Justice Steigmann and Justice Turner concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Remand is required for a Krankel inquiry as the trial court failed to conduct the 

 required inquiry after defendant alleged trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in posttrial

 motions. 

¶ 2 In August 2017, a jury found defendant, Jonathan A. Chambers, guilty of the 

September 13, 2016, offense of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 

570/401(d)(i) (West 2016)). Defendant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He appeals, 

arguing (1) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel as his trial counsel failed to object 

to two interrogation videos containing irrelevant and prejudicial statements by police officers; 

(2) the trial court committed plain error by failing to admonish potential jurors under Illinois 

Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (eff. July 1, 2012); and (3) the court failed to conduct a Krankel 

injury after defendant alleged posttrial he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The 

State concedes the last issue. We agree and find this case must be remanded for an inquiry into 

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). 

FILED

December 3, 2020

Carla Bender

4th District Appellate

Court, IL
- 2 - 

defendant’s pro se claims of ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant to People v. Krankel, 102 

Ill. 2d 181, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984). 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 The State charged defendant with committing the offense of unlawful delivery of 

a controlled substance on September 13, 2016. The State alleged defendant knowingly delivered 

less than one gram of heroin to a confidential source. A jury trial was held, and defendant was 

found guilty. 

¶ 5 On January 16, 2018, defendant filed a pro se motion requesting the trial court set 

aside the jury’s verdict and order a new trial. In the caption for his motion, defendant listed the 

case number for his September 2016 offense, Livingston County case No. 16-CF-298, as well as 

the case number for his conviction for the December 2016 sale of heroin, Livingston County case 

No. 16-CF-299, which was tried separately. Among the allegations in this motion were 

allegations trial counsel was ineffective. Defendant alleged counsel (1) failed to call witnesses 

who would have provided “exculpatory evidence” at trial, (2) refused to allow defendant to listen 

to telephone calls containing exculpatory evidence before trial, (3) failed to develop a trial 

strategy, (4) failed to investigate “anything within any charges against defendant,” and (5) failed 

to follow through with counsel’s statements he would file a motion to suppress. In this motion, 

defendant cited Krankel and argued his claims should be considered. 

¶ 6 That same day, defendant filed a second pro se posttrial motion asking the trial 

court to reconsider the motion to suppress the warrantless arrest. Like the other posttrial motion, 

defendant listed the applicable case numbers as Livingston County case No. 16-CF-298 and 

Livingston County case No. 16-CF-299. Under a heading entitled “Ineffective of Counsel,” 

defendant asserted trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present pretrial motions. 
- 3 - 

¶ 7 By letter dated January 22, 2018, defendant also wrote the trial court, asking that 

his pro se motions be heard because trial counsel “isn’t doing it.” Defendant requested a court 

date on his motions. 

¶ 8 The docket sheet indicates the trial court received defendant’s “correspondence.” 

The court struck defendant’s pro se motions as defendant was represented by counsel. 

¶ 9 A sentencing hearing was held on his conviction in this case as well as his 

conviction for unlawful delivery in Livingston County case No. 16-CF-299. The trial court 

sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of five years. 

¶ 10 This appeal followed.

¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 12 Defendant’s third argument on appeal is the trial court erred by not conducting a 

Krankel inquiry despite his repeated posttrial assertions he was denied the effective assistance of 

trial counsel. 

¶ 13 When a defendant makes a posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the 

trial court must follow the common-law procedure in Krankel. People v. Ayres, 2017 IL 120071, 

¶ 11, 88 N.E.3d 732. The goal of a Krankel proceeding is to have the trial court fully consider a 

“defendant’s pro se claim and thereby potentially limit issues on appeal.” Id. ¶ 13. To trigger the 

court’s obligation to conduct a Krankel inquiry, all a defendant need do is make the bare 

allegation he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. ¶¶ 18, 21, 23 (finding the simple

assertion “I received ineffective assistance of counsel” should not be ignored by the trial court).

This may be accomplished orally or in a written motion. Id. ¶ 24. We review de novo whether the 

trial court properly conducted a Krankel inquiry. People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 28, 25 

N.E.3d 1127. 
- 4 - 

¶ 14 The State concedes the trial court erred by not conducting a Krankel inquiry. The 

State notes a number of the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims appear to pertain solely to 

Livingston County case No. 16-CF-299 but agrees defendant’s allegations of counsel not having 

a “trial tactic,” not investigating anything, not filing a motion to suppress defendant’s statement, 

and not filing pretrial motions were sufficient to trigger the Krankel inquiry in this case. 

¶ 15 We accept the State’s concession. Defendant’s repeated assertions he was denied 

the effective assistance of counsel triggered the trial court’s obligation to conduct a Krankel 

inquiry. While pro se motions should generally be stricken when a defendant is represented by 

counsel, an exception exists when the motion challenges counsel’s performance. People v. 

Rhodes, 2019 IL App (4th) 160917, ¶ 18, 128 N.E.3d 1100. 

¶ 16 Because we conclude a Krankel inquiry is required, we need not consider 

defendant’s other arguments on appeal at this time. People v. Bell, 2018 IL App (4th) 151016, 

¶ 37, 100 N.E.3d 177 (“Depending on the result of the *** Krankel inquiry, defendant’s other 

claims may become moot.”). While we remand “for further proceedings on defendant’s pro se 

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,” 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. 

¶ 17 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 18 For the reasons stated, we remand with directions for the trial court to conduct an 

inquiry into defendant’s pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

¶ 19 Remanded with directions.