Opinion ID: 1980708
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Pro Se Motion for New Counsel

Text: Defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his pro se motion seeking the appointment of new counsel to address claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant's motion alleged that (1) defense counsel prepared the post-trial motion without defendant's input and (2) defense counsel's ability to represent defendant was impaired by alcoholism. The trial court denied the motion without hearing argument, but defendant was allowed to address the court to preserve the record. During his statement to the court, defendant stated that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to call key witnesses to rebut damaging testimony; failing to call character witnesses regarding the defendant's remorse; and in failing to advise defendant to testify. There is no per se rule that new counsel must be appointed whenever a defendant presents a pro se motion for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. ( People v. Nitz (1991), 143 Ill.2d 82, 157 Ill.Dec. 431, 572 N.E.2d 895.) Rather, a trial court must examine the facts underlying the defendant's claim and, if the claim is meritless or pertains to trial strategy, the motion may be denied. If the allegations show possible neglect, however, new counsel should be appointed. Nitz, 143 Ill.2d at 134. 157 Ill. Dec. 431, 572 N.E.2d 895. Defendant is not entitled to the appointment of new counsel to argue ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel's preparation of the post-trial motion and his decision whether to call various witnesses, including the defendant, were matters of trial strategy which may not be second-guessed under Strickland, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. Defendant failed to show that counsel took any of these actions as a result of neglect. Such generalized grievances, presented through hindsight, are insufficient to require the appointment of new counsel.