Docket No . 107536.



### IN THE SUPRE ME COURT OF THE STAT E OF ILLIN OIS

THE PE OP LE O F TH E S TAT E OF I L LIN OI S, Appe llee, v.

TH OM A S TA YL OR , A pp el l an t.
Opinion filed April 15, 2010.

JUSTICE FREEMAN del iv ered th e j udgm

en t of th e c our t, wi th op inion. Chi ef Justice Fit zg er ald and J ust ices T homas , Kilbride, Gar man, and Ka rmeier co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. Jus t ice Bu rk e sp ecially conc ur re d, wit h op inion.

OPINI ON

Fol lo wing a b en ch t r ial i n t he cir cu it co ur t o f Co o k C o un t y, defend ant Thomas

Tayl or was convicted of possession of a controlled substanc e wi

th i nten t to deli ver, a Cl as s 2 f el ony . Be ca us e of two pr i or co nvictio ns f

or Class 2 or gre ater offen ses, he was sentenced as a Class X of f en der a n d w as gi v en a s en te nce o f sev

en y ears’ im priso n men

t. The app ellate co ur t affirmed t he co nvictio n and sentence

. No. 1 –06 –3061 (un pub l i shed order

und er Suprem

e Court Ru le 23) . Fo r t he reasons set f ort h be low, we af

f i rm the j udg men t of the a ppel l ate court.-2- BACK GROUND In Sep t ember 2 004 defend ant was char ged by inf or mati on wi th
one co un t of possessi

on of less than

one gram of

a controlled
su b sta n ce –h eroi n –w i th i nten t to deli ver, wi thi n 1 ,00 0 f eet of a s ch ool (720 ILCS 570/401(d), 407(b)(2) (West 2004 )) , a nd one cou nt of posse ss i on o f les s t ha n o ne gr am o f a c o nt r o lle d
su b sta n ce –h eroi n –w i th i n ten t to deliv er (720 ILCS 570/401(d) (West 2004) ). Pr io rt o t r ial, defend ant was i n court o n Decem

ber 14, 2004, when his priv ate ly ret ained counsel soug ht a r educt ion in defendant’s bond. The Stat e obj ected, not in g, among ot her t hings, t hat “defend ant is [ Class] X manda t or y *** be cau se he has t hre e felonies in hi s background, i

ncl udin g a robb ery and a b urgl ary .” The court granted defendant’s moti on, red

uc i ng the bon d f rom $6 0,0 00to $25,000. On t he next court date, January 12, 200 5, defend ant was pr ese nt when t he Sta te i n f orm ed th e c our t th at a pr ev i ous l y ten dere d of f er to ac ce pt a ple a to a“red uce d cha rg e” ha d bee n re ject ed by de fense c ou nsel, a nd “the off er is no longe r avai la ble.” Defe ndan t’s trial , which was b efore a diff erent judge, took place in sprin g 2006. Chi

cago poli ce off

ic er L. Oli varestestifi

ed that about
n oono n A

ugust 16, 2004, he was conductin g pla in -clothes survei ll ance out side a co ur t yard building when he saw t wo different
wo men, on separate oc cas ions, app ro ach d efenda nt ou t side t he buildingand gi

ve h im an unknown am ount o f Un

ited S t at es cu rr en cy. Af ter defen dant recei ved the m

oney , he would go to the bui ldi ng, retrieve a sma ll o bje ct fr o m a p las t ic b ag in a do o rwa y, and g ive the obje ct to the wom

an . Ol i va res ra dioed hi s en

f orcem en t team , wh ic

h consi stedof th

ree of f i cers , i ncl udin g Off ic er Vin cent Franc one. Fra nco ne testi f

i ed th at w hen t he enfo rc ement t eam ar rived at t he scene, the other t wo offi

cers detain

ed defend ant , a nd Fr anco ne we nt to a door way

in the court ya

rd buildi ng an d recovered a pl astic b ag co nt aining

si x i ndi vi dual bags . D efe nd an t wa s t ak en int o cu st o dy. I llino is St at e Po lice for ensic che mist Mo nica Kinslow t est ifi ed t hat she performe d

t est s o n t he co nt ent s o f one of t he six bags, wh ic h wei ghed 0.094 g ram s, an d the tests we re posi tiv e f or heroi n. Af ter the State

re sted , defense counsel move d for a di

rected fi ndi ng. The ci rcuit court granted t he m

ot ion as to count I, pos se ss i on wi th int en t t o de liver wit hin1, 00 0 fe et o f a school, be cause there was not “ an y tes ti mony ab out a school in the a re a o r t he dist ance fro m the-3- alle ged locati on to the school.” The cour t d en

i ed th e m oti on as to
coun t II, posse ssi

on wi th i nten t to deli ver. St ep ha nie Scot t t estif

ie d for the def

ense that on August 16, 2004, she wen t to the c our

ty ard b ui l di n g a t ab out 1 2:20 p.m. to meet de fe ndan t f or l un ch . Sh e a rri v ed b y b usan d w en t to f i n d def en da n t, who worked f

or aconstruction compan

y i n the b uil din g. She knocked
on t he do or , d efenda nt emerg ed, and t hey walke d ar ou nd t o t he fro nt of the bui ldi ng. As the

y wal ked, defen

dant gave h

e r money to buy lun ch and br ing it ba ck. As she was crossin g the street t o get l

unc h, a police car pull

ed up, a couple of of

f i cers j um pe d ou t an d r an upto def endan t, and one of them ha ndc uf f ed h i m

. Defend ant testifi

ed that on August 16, 20 0 4, he was an indepe ndent con

tractor wor

ki ng f or th e J .S. B arb er C ons tructi on Co mpany in the c ou rt yard building. D efenda nt denied selling co caine
or any ot her controlled substance on that day. A ccording t o de f en da n t, immed iat ely

befo re he wa s a rr es t ed he wa s in h is o ffice in t he co ur t yard building loo king at pa pe rwo rk w hile wai ti n g f or S cott to arriv e. Whe n sh e knocked

on t he do or , he came o ut and t hey went to the front of the bui

ldi ng. Def enda nt gave Scot t $20 t o pick up lunch, and at that point defe ndan t saw a police car

dr iving past , a nd
on e of the of

f i cers saw def endan t han di ng S cott the m

oney. A ft e r defend ant gave Sco t t t he money, she started acro ss the street to get lunch, and d efenda nt went t o a near by sto op, sa t dow n an d s tar ted to read a newspa

per. The police car

pul l ed upand two off

i cers got out and walke d up t o d efenda nt . O ne o f the m ha ndcuf fed him and
sea rched h i m , and def

endan t was p l ace d i

n the pol i ce c ar. The cir cu it cou

rt fo und de fend ant gu ilty o f po ss es sio n o f a contro ll ed sub stan ce wi th i nten t to deli ver, a Class

2 felo ny. De fendant f i l ed a m oti on f ora new tria

l, an d the court deni

ed i t. At sentenci

ng, whi ch to ok place on Jun

e 27 , 2006, the Stat e noted that t hi s was defendant’s fourth fel

ony c onviction. Accordi

ng to t he presen

ten c e i nv es ti ga ti on repor t, de fe nd an t wa s p r ev io us ly co nvi ct ed o f bu r gl ar y, r o bbe ry, and possess i on

of a c on trol l ed su b sta n ce wi th i n ten t to del i ver. He was se

nten ced f or the b urgl ary and r obbe ry co nvictio ns in 1989, an d f or th e p oss es si

on of a controlled s

ubstance co nvic t io n in 1993. It was undi sputedt hat t he bur glar y was a C lass 2 o ffense and t he possession with i

ntent t o deliv

er was a Class 1 offense . D efenda nt thus had at leasttwo prior co nvi ctions for Class 2 or great er offenses.1 Sect ion 5–5 –3( c)(8 ) pr ovides, in r elevantpa rt : “ When a defenda nt, over the age o f 21 years, is con victe d of a Cla ss 1 or C las s 2 felony, aft er having twice be en c onv ic te d *** of an offens e that conta ins the sam e el em en ts as an off en se now classified in

Ill in oi s as a C las s 2 or great er Cla ss f elony and suchcha rg es ar e separ at ely brou ght and tr ied a nd a ri se ou t of diff eren t s eri es of acts, such de fen

dant sh all be sen ten ce d as a Class X o ffe

nd er.” 730 ILCS 5/5–5–3(c)( 8) (

We st 20 04)

.

2 The rec ord do es no t in clu de the State ’s spe

cif ic plea of fe r to d ef en dan t. Ho we ve r, it appare nt ly was an offer to ac cept a plea of gu ilty to a red uc ed ch arge wi th a se nten ce of th ree ye ars’ i m pris on men t.
-4- The Stat e noted that, under se cti on 5 –5– 3(c )(8 ) of the Unifi ed Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5–5–3(c)(8) (West 2004)), defen dant was required to b e s en ten ce d a s a Cl as s X of f en der, wi th a rangeof

6 to 30 yea rs ’ i m pri son men t. 1 The S tate

so ught a se nt ence gr eat er t han t he
m i ni m um, and def

en se c ouns el

reque sted the m

i ni m um

. In al l ocution, de fe

ndan t stated, in

pertin ent part: “Excuseme , I’m s orry, your Honor, but I hadno i dea. I had no ide a what I was f aci ng. I know it was m y r es po ns ibilit y, b ut Ihad no ide a what I was f aci ng f or t hi s type of s i tuati on. Co nsider ingwh at my

family i s goi ng th rough ri ght n ow, I
wou ldn’t [hav e ta ken ] that ch an

ce . Th e of f er th at was made to
me , I wo uld [ ha ve ] jump ed int o it wit h bo t h fe et if I knew that I was f aci ng th i s ty pe of si tuati on. I’ve b een tryi ng h ard. I’ ve trie d ha rd si nce the l ast tim e I gotout of j ai l. I kept the sam e j ob and stay

ed i n the s ame pla ce si nce I’v e been home , sin

ce I ’ve b een h

ome si nce ’95 because t ha t almo st des t ro yed me. I lo st my f irst famil y and my kids then. And I d on’t want t o lose my f ami ly again. I’m 41 years old . I ’m fixin [ g] t o be 42

. I ca n’t go t hr o ug h t his aga in, your Ho no r. I

h ad n o i de a th

at i f –Ih ad n o i de a th

at, M r. Tay l or, if you don’ t take the

three years [ 2 ] an d you ge t fou nd g uil

ty, y ou’re going to [get] si

x to 30, not that yo u co uld *** get six

to 30. That you p r o ba bly–t ha t yo u w o uld get si x to 30.-5- [The re’s ] no wa

y on God’ s ea

rth[ ] Iwo uld [ have t ake n] that chanc e kn ow ing t he sit uat ion, kno wing me, and t he si tuation with m

y f am il y.” Fo llowing defen

dant’s statemen

t, t he ci rcuit court sentenced defend ant to seve

n y ears i n th e cus tody

of the De pa rtm en t of Corr ections. In i

mposi ng sen tence, the court stated it had considered t he argumen

ts in aggravation a

nd m iti gation, as wel

l as defendant’s sta tem en t. The co ur t add ed it was “mindful of the r eh ab i l i tati on pot entia l of [defen dant] *** the need to pro tect so ciet y *** [ and] t he presentence

in vestigation.” The cour t also ordered de f en da n t to pay va r io us fee s a nd fine s. De fen se co un se l filed a mo t io n t o r ec o nsid e r sentence , whi

ch was den i ed . Th

e c our t ap poi n ted appe l l ate cou n se l to repre sen t def endan t. On app eal, defend ant ar gue d t hat his st at ement at sent encing im pli ed defen se counsel was ineffect ive for faili

ng to advise hi

m a bout the possible

penal ties i f h e reje ctedthe S tat e’s plea o ffer. Acco rd ing to defend ant , t he circ uit co ur t er re d by faili ng t o inq uire int o t hi s implic it pro se cla im

of ine ffec t ive as sis t an ce , t o de t er mine w he t he rit had pote nti al meri t an d w he the r new de f ense cou nsel sh ou ld be appoin ted t o a rg ue t he clai

m. The appellate co urt rejecte d defendant’s
argu men t, con cl udi n g th at ev en i f th e state men t at s en te nci ng we re in terpret ed as a claim of ineffect ive assist ance , t he circ uit co ur t had no du ty to in qui re i nto i t whe re, inter alia , defen

dant was re pr ese nt ed by pr iva t ely retained counsel . No. 1–06–3061 ( unpubl is hed orderunder Su pr eme Court Rul e 23). The appella te co urt a ff

irmed defendant’s
con vi cti on an d s en ten ce . Th e c our t also o rd ered

a m odi f i ca ti o n of defendant’s fine s a nd fee s o r de rt o r efle ct $1 55 in c r ed it fo rt ime served in custody pri or t o sentenci ng. No. 1–06– 3061 (unpubl is hed order under Suprem

e Court Rule 23). We al lowed defen dant’s peti tion f or le av e to appea

l . 210 Il l . 2d R. 3 15.

AN AL YSIS T his court has prev

iousl y c onsidered the is sue of wh et her ne w counsel should be appoi

nted where a def

endan t brin gs a pro se postt rial moti on al l egi ng i ne f f ecti ve ass i stan ce of coun sel . In

a l i ne of
case s beg inning with People v. Krankel, 1 02 I ll. 2d 1 81 ( 198 4) , t he follow ingrule dev

el oped. New co un se l is no t au t o mat ica lly required-6- in every case wh

ere a defendant brin

gs su ch a mot ion. Inst ead , t he trial cour t should fi

rst exami ne the factual b asis o f t h e defendant’s cla im. If the c ourt det er mines the claim lacks mer it o r p er t ains onl y to
matters of trial

strategy, new

counsel need n ot be appoi

nted and t he pro se motion m

ay be de nied. Ho weve r, if the defend ant ’s allega t ions sh owpo ss ible negl

ect of the case, n

ew counsel

should be appoi

nted to ar gu e t he de fen da nt ’s cla im o f ine ffec t iv e as si stan ce. People v. Moore , 207 Ill . 2d68, 77- 78 ( 200 3) ( citing case s); People v. Munson , 171 Ill. 2d 158 , 1 99- 200 (1 996 ). “T he ap pointed counsel can ind ep en de nt ly

eval uate the d efen

dant ’s claim and w ou ld avo id t he confl ict of i nterest that t rial

counsel would ex perien ce i f tri al counsel had to j us ti f y hi s or he r acti ons con trar y to defend an

t’s pos i tion .” Moore , 207 Il

l . 2d at 78

. Defend ant here argues h is statement at sentenci

ng was an

“ i m pl i ci t” cl ai m of in eff ective assistance o f counse l, an d t he cir cu it courtth eref

orewa s req

ui re d to conduct a Krank

el inquiry. D efenda nt conten ds the c irc uit co ur t mad e n o su ch inq uir y. H e a r gu es , in add itio n, t hat t he ap pellat e co ur t er re d in ho lding t hat a de fendant represented

by priv ately retained c ounsel

is not entitled to a Krankel inq ui ry. Defe

ndan t not es that, in reac hing t his co nclusio n, t he appe l l ate courtre lied on t his co ur t ’s de cision in People v. Pecoraro , 144 Ill. 2d 1 ( 199 1) . D efenda nt ’s ar gument s pr ese nt que sti ons of la w, whi ch we rev ie w de novo . See Moore , 207 Il l . 2d at 75

. We t ur n t o t he qu est ion o f whet her defend ant ’s st at ement at sent encing constituted a pro se cl ai m of i ne f f ec ti ve as sista nc e of counsel suffi cient to tr igger t he circuit co urt ’s duty to con duct a Krank el i nqu i ry

. We n ote i

n i ti al l y th at n owh ere i n de f en da n t’s sta tem en t at sent encing did he sp ec if ic a ll y complai

n about his atto rney’s performa nce, or e x pr es sl y sta te he was clai

mi ng i nef fecti ve ass is tance of counsel . Defen

dant’s ch aracterizati on of his statemen t as an “implic it c l ai

m of in eff ective assistance of couns el ” i s an ack now ledgment of t his po int. Defend ant nevertheless ar gu es t ha t his st at ement provided a

“clear basis” fo r a claim of ineffect iveassi stance. Defe ndan t cor rectly

notes that “a pro se de fen da nt is n ot re qui re d to do any mor e t han br ing his or her claim to t he tr ial cou rt ’s attenti

on.” Moore , 207 Ill. 2d at 79. In Moore , this po int was sup po rt ed by ci tation to two appel

l ate court de ci sions, People v . Giles , 26 1 I ll.-7- App. 3d 833 (1994), and People v. Finley , 2 22 I ll . App. 3d 571 (1991 ). It is

true t hat, sim

il ar t o d efenda nt her e, neithe r t he de fendant in Giles no rt he de fen da nt in Finley fi le d aco nvent ional, wr itt en pro se postt rial

motion al le gin g in eff ective assistance. I nst ea d, in each case t he “cl ai m” was i nc l uded i n c orrespon

den ce to the tri

al court. In Giles , “[a]f ter de fen da nt ’s t r ial a nd be fo r e h is sent encing he ar ing, d efenda nt sent a l ett e r to the tri al

court cri tic izi ng h i s counsel ’sperf

orma nc e.” Giles , 26 1 I ll. App. 3d a t 846 . T he let t er included five separate bases f orclaiming that co unse l was ine f fect ive. S imi

larly, in Finley , follow ingdefen

dan t’ s convi ction, he “

wrot e three le

tt ers to t he trial judge ” pr ovi di

n g th e nam

es of potential wi tnes ses

. Finley , 22 2 I ll. Ap p. 3d at 57 6. De fen da nt “c ha r ge d t ha t his p ub lic defen der di d n ot attempt to contact t hes e po ten ti al wi tne ss esan

d that she

‘d i d n ot
re pr ese nt me to th

e best of h

er abi li ty.’ ” Finley , 222 Ill . App. 3d at 576. While ne it he ro f t he se “c laims ” w as conven tional , each nonethel es s expr es sly

compl ai ned ab out counsel ’s perf

ormance , unlike de f en da n t. The Stat e responds that the record here fai ls to dem onstrate a “cl ear basis” fo r a ny allegat ion o f ineffective a ssist ance of c ou nsel, a nd t he circuit co urt ther efore had no dut y to inquire into co unsel’s eff ectiveness. As t he St at e co rr ect ly not es, t he re is no t hing in defendant’s st at ement spe cifically informing t he co ur t t hat defend ant is com pl ai ni ng ab out h i s a ttor ney ’s pe rfo rmance . I ndee d, defend ant does not mention hi s atto rney . In addi tion, becaus e o f the ra mbli ng na ture of def

endan t’s statem en

t, i t is amenable t o mo re t han o ne inter pr et at ion. For exa

m pl e, accordi

ng to the St ate, “ defendant’s st at ement merel

y shows reg

ret at not ac cepti

ng th e m ore advan tageous plea

de al be f ore tr i al , an d n ot that he reje cted the off

er based upon a m

aterial mi sunderstandi

ng of wh at sent ence he f

ace d.” See People v. Grant , 71 I ll. 2d 5 51, 557 -5 8 ( 197 8) (r eject ing
ar gument t ha t t r ial c o ur t er r ed in fa ili ng to giv

e parti cul ar j ury instr uct ion, st at ing: “I f a defe ndant doe s n ot ar ti cul ate hi s theory *** he ca nno t r ea so nably ex pe ct t he t r ial c o ur t , un aid ed , t o div ine his in tent”). If def

endan t’s statement i

n the case

at bar were deem

ed sufficient to require a Krank el i nqu i ry , f ew s t at ement s wo uld be i n suf f i ci en t. We agree with the Stat e that defen dant’s statemen

t at
sen tenc i ng was i ns uf f i cien t to requi re su ch an i nqu i ry

. Be ca us e of our d i sp osi ti on of thi s appeal , we need n ot reach t he-8- remai nder of defendan

t’s arguments, incl

uding defendant’s cl ai

m that t he appella

te court erred in

holdi ng, pu rs ua

nt to Pecoraro , that a defend ant r ep r es en t ed by p r iva t ely re tai n ed cou n se l i s n ot en ti tl ed to
a Krank el in quiry . We express no op i

ni on re gar ding t hat dec ision by t he appella

te court , which i s i

rrelev ant to o ur holdi

ng that it was defend ant ’s st at ement in itself which wa s insufficient to require suc h
an inq ui ry.

CONCLUSION We af f i rm th e j udgm

en t of th e a pp el l ate cou rt, b ut f or r eas ons other than

those s et f

orth by that court.

Aff irmed.
JUSTICE BURKE, speci ally concurrin

g: I ag re e wi th t he major ity’s co nclusio n t hat defend ant ’s st at ement to the ci rcuit court was insufficientto wa rra n t an i n qui ry pu rsua n t to People v. Krankel , 10 2 I l l . 2d

18 1 ( 19 84 ). I

wri te separat ely

because I bel ie ve we m ust also address def

endan t’s cl aim t h at th

e a pp el l ate
cou rt er red i n h ol di ng , pu rs ua nt to People

v. Pecoraro , 144 Ill . 2d 1 (1 99 1) , that a

defen dant represented by

priv ately retained co un se l is not entitled to a Krankel

inq ui ry. Wh en in terpret in g Pecoraro , our ap pel la t e court has reached contrad i ctory concl usi ons rega

r di n g th e a pp oi n ted cou n se l /p ri v ate counsel issue. In People v. Shaw, 351 Il l . Ap p. 3 d 1087 , 10 92 (4 th Dist. 2004), the app ell ate co ur t no t ed t ha t t he de fen da nt , “a s in Pecoraro ,” was represen

ted by priv ate counsel a

nd he ld, simi

lar t o t he appe l l ate cou rt b el ow, th at a Kranke l i

nqu i ry wasnot requ

i red. In People v. Johnson , 22 7 I l l . A

pp . 3d 80 0, 8 10(1 st D i st. 199 2) , o n t he ot her ha nd, th e court st at ed: “[W] e do not believe Pecoraro sta nds f or t he prop osi

ti on that a trial

court is free to auto ma

tical ly deny a pro se request for new

co un se l simp ly

because the defe nse couns el

who was alle gedl y i nef fecti ve was pri

vatel y retai ned.” The pr imary rea so n we a llowed t he peti ti on f or l ea v e to ap pe al in t he cas e at bar was t o r eso lve the co nfli ct in o ur appe l l atecou

rt on3 T he dis sent ing ju st ice di sa gr eed, a rg uin g it was “i rr eleva nt” wheth er cou nsel was a ppointed or reta ined. “It is a s equallyinapp rop ria te for privat e counsel to ar gue his in

com pe te nc e at a po st-t

rial he arin g as it isfo r an ap poi nted public d

efe nde r.” (Emphasis i

n orig inal.) Pecoraro , 144Ill. 2 d at 23 ( Clark , J., d iss en tin g)

. -9- t his issu e. Yet , t he major ity makes no e ffort t o d o s o. Inst ead , t he
maj ori ty assumes, without deci din g, that Krankel

ap plie s t o pr iva t ely retained co unse l since it a ddr esse s t he merits of defendant’s cl ai m on a f actua l b as i s. Ra th er th an si m pl y as su m i n g th at Kra nkel

appl i es to pr iva t ely retai ne d counsel, I wou

l d add re ss th e c on f l i ct i n th e a pp el l ate
co ur t and c larify our hold ing in Pecoraro

. In Pecoraro , t he defen

dant fi le d po st t rial mot ions, bot h pro se and through hi s counsel , all

egi ng i nef fecti ve ass is tance of c ou nsel, a nd t he trial co ur t denied t he mot ions. On ap pea l, t he de f en da n t ar gu ed th at, under Krankel , the trial

court should have appoin ted ot her counsel

to argue his m

otion s al l egi ng i ne f f ecti ve ass i stan ce. Th i s court dis tingui shed Krank

el an d h eld t ha t it di d n o t ap pl y. The court st ated: “Un li ke Krankel , w her e de fendant was re pr ese nt ed by an appoin ted publ ic defen der at bot h trial

and post -tr ial

motions, defend ant Pe coraro re tai

n ed pri v ate counsel t o r ep r es en t him at trial and in post-t rial

motions . It was not withi n the trial
cou rt ’s rubri c of authority to advise or exerci se any

in fl uence orco nt r o l ov er

th e se lect ion o f co unse l by defendant , w ho
was ab l e to, and

did, choose counsel

on hi s own accord. [Ci tation .] Mo re ove r, t he t rial judg e co uld no t for ce d efenda nt to reta i n c oun se l

ot h er th an th at ch ose

n b y de f en da n t. [Ci tation .] Defendan

t and his c ou nsel

were the onl

y pa rties who could have al

tered t hei r att orney-cl

ie nt relationshi

p. Defend ant could have retai ned o t he rco un se l t o r ep r es en t him pri ort o t he he ari

ng of hi s post-t rial

motions .” Pecoraro , 144 Ill . 2d at 15. We conc l

uded , “ Krankel is a fairly fact -sp ecific cas e, and t he ci rcumstances i

n the case at hand, whe

re defen dant retaine d hi s own pri v ate cou n se l an d di d n ot re qu est t hat he be represen ted by ot her
co uns el, do no t wa rr ant t he a pp licat io n o f Krankel .” Pecoraro , 144 Ill . 2d at 15. 34 The atto rne y h ad prev io usl y re pre se nted the m urder victi

m

. -10- As no ted ab ove , th e a

ppe l l atecou

rt h asrea ch ed con trad i ctor y co nclusio ns as to how t o read Pecor aro . To r ead Pecoraro as dis tingui shi ng be tween appoin

ted and retain

ed counsel wou l d cre ate
a conf l i ct w ith Cuyler v. Sullivan , 446 U.S. 335, 64 L. Ed. 2d 333, 100 S. Ct. 17 08 (1 980 ). In Sullivan , a habeas cas e, t he r esp ond ent alle ged ine ffec t ive as sis t an ce o f co un se l ba se d o n p o t en t ial c o nfl i cts of in terest ari si ng f rom pri va tel y reta i ne d c oun se l ’s

repres en tation of mult iple def

endan ts. The peti tion ers a rgued , i n re spon se, t hat t he alle g ed fail ings o f privat ely ret ained c ou nsel co uld no t pr ovid e t he ba sis f ora w rit o f habeas corpus . Th e C our t re j ected th i s a rgum en t. “A pr op er re spe ct for t he Sixt h Amendm en t dis ar ms pet itioner[s’] con

ten ti on th at def en da n ts wh o r et ain their own l awy ersare en ti tl ed to l es s protecti on th

an de f en da nts f or wh om the Stat e appoin

ts counsel . We ma y

as su me wi th confi dence t ha t mo st co un se l, whether retain ed or appo in ted, wil l protect the righ

ts of an accus ed. But experie nce teache s th at, in so me c as es , r et ain ed co un se l willnot pro vi de adeq ua te repr ese nt at ion. The vi

tal guarantee of the

Six th Am endm en t
wo uld stand f

or li tt le if the often uni

nf ormed de cis io n t o r et ain
a particular lawy

er could redu ce o r forfeit t he defendant’s ent itlement t o c ons ti t ut ional prot ect ion. Since the S tat e’s conduct o f a c r im

ina l t r ia l itself impli

cat es t he St at e in the defendant’s con

viction, we see n

o basi s f or drawing a di sti nc ti on between retai

ned an d appoin ted co un se l t ha t wo uld deny equal justice to defendants who must choose their own la wyers.” Sullivan , 446 U.S. at 344-45, 64 L. Ed. 2d at 344, 100 S. Ct. at 1716. Thi s holdin

g was reaf

fi rmed in Mickens v. Taylor , 535 U.S. 162, 152 L. Ed. 2d 29 1, 1 22 S. Ct. 123 7 ( 200 2) , w her e t he de fendant , w ho
was co nvict ed o f mur der , a lleged ineffect ive assist ance beca use one of hi s court -appo in

ted at to rneys h

ad a conflict of in

terest at t r ial. 4 In response to a dissen

ting j ustice’s suggestion “that a t rial cour t must
s crutini ze representation b

y a ppointed counsel

more cl osely than
repr es en tati o n by retained c ounsel ,” the Court ci ted Sullivan and stated: “But we hav

e al ready rej ected t henot i on th at th e S i xth-11- Amendment draws such a di stin ction.” Mickens , 535 U.S. at 168 n.2, 152 L. Ed. 2d at 302 n.2, 122 S. Ct. at 1242 n.2, ci ting Sullivan , 446 U.S. at 344, 64 L. Ed. 2d at 344, 100 S. Ct. at 1716. To read Pecoraro as p ro hibitinga Krankel i nqu i ry sim ply because
counse l wa s reta i n ed wou l d c on f l i ct wi th Su pr em e C our t au th ori ty and wo uld be a violat ion o f the sixth a mendment right t o e ffect ive assi stanceo f co un se l. Acco rd ingly, I wo uld r eso lve the co nfli ct in the app ell ate cou rt by cl ari f y i n g th at Pecoraro do es no t st and fo r t he propos i ti on th at Krankel

o nly ap plie s t o ap po int ed co un se l.