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) 180234-U

Order filed November 9, 2020 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

2020 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

ILLINOIS, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

SALVADOR A. CORONADO, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant-Appellant. ) 

Appeal from the Circuit Court

of the 13th Judicial Circuit, 

La Salle County, Illinois, 

Appeal No. 3-18-0234 

Circuit No. 15-CF-213 

Honorable 

Cynthia M. Raccuglia, 

Judge, Presiding. 

____________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE WRIGHT delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices O’Brien and Schmidt concurred in the judgment. 

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Any deficiency in the circuit court’s preliminary Krankel inquiry into defendant’s 

pro se allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing was 

harmless. 

¶ 2 Defendant, Salvador A. Coronado, appeals the denial of his pro se motion to reduce 

sentence. He contends that the La Salle County circuit court failed to conduct a preliminary 

inquiry into his allegations of ineffective assistance of plea counsel at sentencing pursuant to 

People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984). We affirm. 
2 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Defendant pled guilty to the offenses of failure to register as a sex offender (730 ILCS 

150/3 (West 2014)) and aggravated battery of a peace officer (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(d)(4) (West 

2014)). The State agreed to cap its sentencing request at three and five years’ imprisonment, 

respectively. The court sentenced defendant to consecutive terms of two years’ imprisonment for 

failure to register as a sex offender and four and a half years’ imprisonment for aggravated 

battery of a peace officer. 

¶ 5 Defendant filed a pro se motion to reduce his sentence arguing that his plea counsel 

provided ineffective assistance during sentencing. In addition, defense counsel told the court that 

defendant wished to prepare and pursue a motion to vacate his guilty plea possibly based on 

defense counsel’s substandard legal representation. At that time, the court advised defendant he 

would need new counsel and immediately appointed new counsel for defendant before 

continuing the proceedings to another date. Thereafter, newly appointed counsel submitted a 

formal motion to reconsider sentence and scheduled the matter for hearing. At the next hearing, 

newly appointed counsel advised the court that counsel reviewed the pending motions with 

defendant and “explained to him that there was a cap in this matter. He still wishes to proceed 

with this in the motion to reconsider, and I can just briefly just begin when you are ready.” 

¶ 6 The court then told defendant he needed “to do a motion to vacate your guilty plea. You 

don’t have the right to do a motion to reconsider.” New counsel responded that he had 

“explained that to [defendant].” Subsequently, new counsel filed a motion to vacate defendant’s 

guilty plea based on the ineffective assistance of plea counsel. Following a hearing, the court

denied the motion to vacate, and defendant now appeals. 
3 

¶ 7 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 8 Defendant argues that the circuit court should have conducted a preliminary Krankel

inquiry into his claims of ineffective assistance of plea counsel at sentencing. Since the court 

failed to do so, defendant requests this court to vacate the order denying defendant’s motion to 

reduce sentence and remand the matter with directions to conduct the preliminary Krankel

inquiry the court failed to perform before appointing new counsel. 

¶ 9 We review de novo whether the circuit court properly conducted a preliminary Krankel

inquiry. People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 28. A preliminary Krankel inquiry is conducted in 

order to determine whether to appoint counsel to pursue defendant’s claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel. People v. Nitz, 143 Ill. 2d 82, 134-35 (1991). 

¶ 10 In the instant matter, the court summarily appointed new counsel to represent defendant 

without conducting a preliminary Krankel inquiry. Since defendant received the benefit that 

could have resulted from a preliminary Krankel inquiry by having new counsel appointed, we 

conclude that any deficiency in the court’s inquiry was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See

id. at 135. The fact that new counsel effectively conceded he could not challenge the sentence 

and ultimately did not pursue the ineffective assistance claims regarding sentencing does not 

change that conclusion, especially considering defendant fails to challenge that approach by new 

counsel on appeal. 

¶ 11 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 12 The judgment of the circuit court of La Salle County is affirmed. 

¶ 13 Affirmed.