Opinion ID: 2039539
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: trial court's refusal to appoint new counsel to argue defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel

Text: In order for defendant to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, he must establish both: (1) that his attorney's performance was deficient in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that he suffered substantial prejudice as a result of counsel's deficiencies. ( Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693; People v. Albanese (1984), 104 Ill.2d 504, 85 Ill.Dec. 441, 473 N.E.2d 1246.) such showing has been made in this case. Defendant, relying on People v. Krankel (1984), 102 Ill.2d 181, 80 Ill.Dec. 62, 464 N.E.2d 1045, contends that the trial court erred in not appointing new counsel to represent him to argue his oral motion alleging his trial counsel's ineffectiveness. Krankel, however, did not establish a per se rule that all pro se motions for a new trial alleging the ineffective assistance of counsel must result in the appointment of new counsel. ( People v. Mallette (1985), 131 Ill.App.3d 67, 73-75, 86 Ill.Dec. 240, 475 N.E.2d 237; People v. Jackson (1985), 131 Ill.App.3d 128, 137-40, 85 Ill.Dec. 738, 474 N.E.2d 466.) A trial court's decision not to appoint separate counsel on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim will not be erroneous if the underlying claim is deemed to be without merit or related to a matter of trial tactics. ( Jackson, 131 Ill. App.3d at 139, 85 Ill.Dec. 738, 474 N.E.2d 466.) In the case at bar, defendant argues that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to investigate defendant's claim of having an attorney appointed on the New Mexico charges. This issue has already been addressed, and it was concluded that defendant's statements were properly admissible. A review of the record indicates that defense counsel presented the case in the manner defendant requested even though defense counsel on a few occasions advised defendant that in his professional opinion it would be beneficial to take a different strategic step. Thus, since defendant's claim is without merit, and since the case was presented in the manner in which he requested, defendant was not entitled to new counsel. For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court. Appellate court affirmed.