Court Opinion

ID: 9556837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-18 20:06:34.607772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:07.069636
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (4th) 220616-U
            NOTICE                                                                         FILED
This Order was filed under
                                                                                        August 18, 2023
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is                  NO. 4-22-0616
not precedent except in the
                                                                                         Carla Bender
                                                                                      th
limited circumstances allowed                                                        4 District Appellate
under Rule 23(e)(1).
                                      IN THE APPELLATE COURT                              Court, IL

                                               OF ILLINOIS

                                           FOURTH DISTRICT

     THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                        )      Appeal from the
                Plaintiff-Appellee,                              )      Circuit Court of
                v.                                               )      Lee County
     ROY S. INMAN,                                               )      No. 18CF232
                Defendant-Appellant.                             )
                                                                 )      Honorable
                                                                 )      Jacquelyn D. Ackert,
                                                                 )      Judge Presiding.

                     JUSTICE LANNERD delivered the judgment of the court.
                     Presiding Justice DeArmond and Justice Doherty concurred in the judgment.

                                                  ORDER

    ¶1      Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear
                  defendant’s posttrial ineffective assistance of counsel claim and (2) defendant
                  forfeited his sentencing challenge.

    ¶2               Following a bench trial, defendant, Roy S. Inman, was convicted of four counts of

    predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 48 years’ imprisonment. On appeal,

    defendant argues (1) the trial court failed to comply with People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181, 464

    N.E.2d 1045 (1984) and (2) he was denied a fair sentencing hearing when the court relied on a

    misstatement of his prior criminal history as an aggravating sentencing factor. We affirm.

    ¶3                                      I. BACKGROUND

    ¶4               In October 2018, the State charged defendant with six counts of predatory criminal

    sexual assault of a child (720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1) (West 2016)) for committing acts of sexual

    contact with his daughter, A.I., who was under the age of 13 at the time of the acts. Defendant
waived his right to a jury trial and the matter proceeded to a bench trial in May 2022. Following a

bench trial, defendant was convicted of four counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child.

Id. As defendant was convicted on four of the six counts, we include only those facts necessary to

address the issues raised on appeal.

¶5                                        A. Bench Trial

¶6             Jennifer Warrenfeltz, the principal at A.I.’s school, testified A.I. disclosed to her

that defendant touched her and made her touch him. Warrenfeltz indicated A.I. was very upset

during this conversation. According to A.I., the touching occurred when defendant and A.I. were

in bed. Moreover, A.I. stated she also observed defendant touch her sister, M.I., or M.I. touch

defendant. A.I. explained M.I. might lie because her parents told M.I. and A.I. to lie. After her

meeting with A.I., Warrenfeltz contacted the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services.

¶7             Traci Mueller, a forensic interviewer for Shining Star Children’s Advocacy Center,

testified about her forensic interview with A.I. During their interview, A.I. disclosed defendant

touched A.I.’s genitals with his hands and mouth and made A.I. touch defendant’s genitals with

her hands and mouth. A.I. indicated this occurred on more than one occasion.

¶8             A.I. testified she told the truth to Warrenfeltz and Mueller about what happened to

her. In addition, she acknowledged defendant was her father and identified defendant in open court.

On cross-examination, A.I. admitted she had been punished a few weeks earlier for biting her

sister. Furthermore, defense counsel challenged A.I.’s testimony she saw defendant make M.I.

suck on his penis because she could not see under the covers.

¶9             Julianna Inman, A.I.’s mother, testified A.I. had a history of lying about “small

stuff,” but not serious matters such as this. However, she indicated A.I. was lying if A.I. said her

mother told her to say that nothing happened to her.

                                               -2-
¶ 10             A.I.’s sister, M.I., testified defendant exposed his penis to her but she could not

recall if defendant ever placed his penis in her mouth.

¶ 11             Defendant testified A.I. wanted him out of the house and hated him. Defendant

insisted A.I. was lying and denied sexually abusing A.I. or M.I.

¶ 12             Following closing arguments, the trial court found defendant guilty on four of the

six counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child.

¶ 13                                       B. Sentencing

¶ 14             During the sentencing hearing, the trial court admitted defendant’s presentence

investigation report (PSI) without correction or objection from either party. The PSI contained all

of defendant’s previous convictions, including a conviction for aggravated criminal sexual abuse

in 2005. When discussing defendant’s prior record, defense counsel stated: “the Sex Abuse Class

2 in ’05; that case involved a—I think a 15- or 16-year-old-girl though, nothing similar to this type

of case.”

¶ 15             The State requested 15-year consecutive sentences on each count, for an aggregate

60 years’ imprisonment. Defendant asked the trial court to impose the minimum sentences of 6

years on all counts with (1) concurrent sentences for counts II and III, (2) concurrent sentences for

counts V and VI, and (3) consecutive sentences for the two concurrent pairs, for an aggregate 12-

year sentence.

¶ 16             When imposing the sentence, the trial court specifically mentioned statutory

aggravating factors related to defendant’s prior criminal history (730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.2(a) et seq.

(West 2022)). The court also cited the need for deterrence where defendant had a “prior offense of

a sexual assault of a child.” The court noted in aggravation defendant’s position of trust and

authority as A.I.’s father and the serious harm he caused. The court sentenced defendant to

                                                -3-
consecutive terms of 12 years’ imprisonment on each count, for a total of 48 years in prison.

Defendant was admonished of his right to an appeal.

¶ 17                                     C. Postsentencing

¶ 18           On July 18, 2022, the circuit court clerk filed two pro se documents from defendant.

In the first letter, defendant asked the circuit clerk’s office to help him obtain the paperwork

necessary to file an appeal and identify counsel to pursue the appeal. Defendant stated he was

filing a notice of appeal alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and insufficient evidence. A

docket entry by the clerk’s office states, “After consultation with counsel[,] the Circuit Clerk’s

Office is taking Defendant Inman’s Motion of Notice of Appeal as his request for the clerk of the

circuit court to prepare a Notice of Appeal on his behalf.”

¶ 19           This appeal followed.

¶ 20                                       II. ANALYSIS

¶ 21           On appeal, defendant argues (1) the trial court erred when it failed to conduct a

Krankel inquiry and (2) he was denied a fair sentencing hearing. We disagree.

¶ 22                                     A. Krankel Inquiry

¶ 23           Through Krankel and its progeny, our supreme court established a procedure

“intended to promote consideration of pro se ineffective assistance claims in the trial court and to

limit issues on appeal.” People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 41, 960 N.E.2d 1114. When a

defendant brings a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance to the court’s attention, the

defendant triggers a required two step procedure. People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68, 77-79, 797

N.E.2d 631, 637-38 (2003). First, the trial court must “conduct some type of inquiry into the

underlying factual basis, if any, of a defendant’s pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel.” Id. at 79. Second, “if the allegations show possible neglect of the case, new counsel

                                                -4-
should be appointed.” Id. at 78. “The new counsel would then represent the defendant at [a] hearing

on the defendant’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance.” Id. However, our supreme court has also

stated, “once a notice of appeal has been filed, the trial court loses jurisdiction of the case and may

not entertain a Krankel motion.” Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 39.

¶ 24                                       1. Pro Se Filing

¶ 25           In this case, defendant argues the trial court erred when it failed to conduct a

Krankel inquiry after he filed a written document asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

Defendant contends his motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel was filed before the

circuit clerk prepared his notice of appeal, which occurred two days after defendant’s pro se

documents were filed. Further, defendant maintains his pro se filings were sufficient to trigger a

Krankel inquiry and should not have been construed as a notice of appeal. According to defendant,

his pro se filings were intended to seek information about how to properly file an appeal at a later

date.

¶ 26           In support of his argument, defendant cites our decision in People v. Bell, 2018 IL

App (4th) 151016, 100 N.E.3d 177. In Bell, the defendant was convicted of multiple counts of

unlawful delivery of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of a controlled substance. Id.

¶ 1. On September 28, 2015, the trial court sentenced the defendant to three concurrent terms of

22 years’ imprisonment. Id. ¶ 15. On September 30, 2015, the defendant’s counsel filed a motion

to reconsider the sentence. Id. ¶ 17. Two days later, on October 1, 2015, the defendant filed a

pro se posttrial motion titled as “Motion of Leave Appeal,” alleging ineffective assistance of

counsel. Id. ¶ 19. During the December 2015 hearing on the motion to reconsider, the court did

not inquire into the defendant’s complaint about his counsel’s performance. Id. ¶ 21. On appeal,

the defendant argued, inter alia, that remand was necessary where (1) the court failed to conduct

                                                 -5-
an inquiry into his ineffective assistance claim and (2) his counsel provided ineffective assistance

for failing to request a fitness hearing. Id. ¶ 24. The State conceded that the defendant’s October

2015 ineffective assistance claim was sufficient to trigger the court’s duty to conduct a preliminary

Krankel inquiry. Id. ¶ 34. We agreed and remanded the matter for the trial court to conduct a

preliminary inquiry. Id. ¶ 36.

¶ 27           We find this case distinguishable from Bell. In Bell, the defendant’s trial counsel

filed a motion to reconsider the sentence. The defendant then filed a pro se motion alleging

ineffective assistance and captioned said motion as a motion for leave to appeal. We noted a

defendant represented by counsel cannot file pro se motions except when the pro se motion is

directed at their counsel’s performance. Id. ¶ 28. Therefore, the defendant’s pro se motion could

only reasonably be interpreted as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which required a

preliminary Krankel inquiry, rather than as a notice of appeal. Moreover, the defendant’s pending

ineffective assistance claim could have been addressed by the trial court during the December 2015

hearing on the pending motion to reconsider, but the court failed to consider it.

¶ 28           Here, unlike Bell, no postsentencing motion had been filed. Thus, defendant’s filing

could not be interpreted to have raised the claim during ongoing posttrial proceedings. Indeed,

nothing was pending at the time defendant requested an appeal from the circuit clerk’s office.

Defendant’s pro se filing with the circuit clerk contemporaneously expressed his desire to seek an

appeal and challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, along with an ineffective assistance of

counsel claim. As Bell applies when a trial court’s duty to conduct a Krankel hearing is invoked

prior to the notice of appeal, it provides limited assistance in the present matter. We also note that

on appeal in Bell, the defendant continued to allege ineffective assistance of counsel. Conversely,

                                                -6-
in this case, defendant abandoned his prior ineffective assistance claim and argues only that the

court erred by denying him a fair sentencing hearing.

¶ 29              This case more closely resembles People v. Darr, 2018 IL App (3d) 150562, 95

N.E.3d 10. In Darr, the defendant filed a notice of appeal contemporaneously with a filing

containing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. ¶ 93. The circuit clerk construed this as

a single filing. Id. The defendant appealed, alleging, inter alia, the trial court erred in not

conducting a preliminary Krankel inquiry. Id. ¶ 43. The third district appellate court disagreed,

holding instead, “[w]hen [the] defendant filed his notice of appeal, even contemporaneously with

his ineffectiveness claims, he had perfected his appeal and deprived the circuit court of

jurisdiction.” Id. ¶ 99. Darr reasoned that, once the notice of appeal was filed, the circuit court lost

jurisdiction to conduct a Krankel inquiry and, had it conducted one, any ruling would have been

void. Id. ¶ 93.

¶ 30              Here, defendant simultaneously filed two documents within 30 days of sentencing.

The first document, which was addressed to the circuit clerk, requested the clerk’s help with his

appeal. Defendant’s intention to file an appeal is evidenced by his request that the clerk provide

him with the appropriate paperwork to file an appeal. Additionally, we note defendant asked the

clerk for assistance in finding an attorney who handles appeals. Defendant’s second document

explicitly states defendant is “filing a motion of Notice of appeal of sentence.” The second filing

alleges multiple bases for defendant’s appeal, including ineffective assistance of counsel and

insufficiency of the evidence to support his guilt. We disagree with defendant’s contention his

pro se filing should not be construed as seeking an appeal.

¶ 31              Additionally, the trial court clearly interpreted defendant’s pro se documents as a

request for an appeal because it appointed appellate counsel on July 18, 2022. Given the court

                                                 -7-
understood defendant’s pro se filing to be a notice of appeal, it was without jurisdiction to conduct

a preliminary Krankel inquiry. See id. ¶ 89 (“Any ruling made by the circuit court in the absence

of jurisdiction is void.”).

¶ 32            Having concluded defendant’s pro se filing was correctly construed as a notice of

appeal, the trial court was without jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary Krankel inquiry. See id.

Consequently, the court did not err in failing to hold a Krankel inquiry on defendant’s ineffective

assistance claim.

¶ 33                          2. Rejection of Initial Notice of Appeal

¶ 34            Defendant next argues that because the notice of appeal filed by the circuit clerk on

July 18, 2022, was initially rejected, the trial court retained jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary

Krankel inquiry until his notice of appeal was accepted on July 20, 2022.

¶ 35            Even assuming, arguendo, the trial court retained jurisdiction until July 20, 2022,

our conclusion does not change. Defendant was sentenced on June 29, 2022. Defendant was

required to file any postsentencing motion or notice of appeal within 30 days of sentencing.

Defendant’s pro se documents were filed on July 18, 2022, which was within 30 days of final

judgment. There were no other postsentencing motions pending. Defendant filed two documents:

a notice of appeal and a contemporaneous claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which the

clerk concluded was a single filing.

¶ 36            As provided by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 606(a) (eff. Mar. 12, 2021), after a

defendant is advised of his right to an appeal and “subsequently in writing” requests an appeal,

“the clerk of the trial court shall prepare, sign, and file forthwith a notice of appeal for the

defendant.” This is precisely what occurred. The circuit clerk, on advice of counsel, interpreted

defendant’s pro se documents as a request for an appeal. Pursuant to Rule 606(a), the circuit clerk

                                                -8-
filed a notice of appeal on defendant’s behalf. The record shows on July 18, 2022, the circuit clerk

attempted to file a notice of appeal on defendant’s behalf, which was rejected for being incomplete.

On July 20, 2022, the notice of appeal was accepted. While the specific reason the initial notice of

appeal was rejected is unclear from the record, the circuit clerk promptly remedied the filing error

and successfully filed a notice of appeal on July 20, 2022, thereby vesting this court with

jurisdiction. See id. (“No step in the perfection of the appeal other than the filing of the notice of

appeal is jurisdictional.”).

¶ 37            Therefore, regardless of whether defendant’s notice of appeal had been accepted

for filing on July 18, 2022, or July 20, 2022, defendant sought an appeal at the same time he raised

his ineffective assistance claims. However, once the notice of appeal was filed, the trial court lost

jurisdiction to conduct a Krankel inquiry. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 39; Darr, 2018 IL App (3d)

150562, ¶ 99. As such, the court did not err in failing to hold a Krankel inquiry on defendant’s

ineffective assistance claim.

¶ 38                                      3. Trial Counsel

¶ 39            Defendant also alleges it was his trial counsel who advised the circuit clerk to file

his notice of appeal, but he points to nothing in the record to support his contention the “counsel”

referred to in the docket entry is, in fact, defendant’s trial counsel. See People v. Hughes, 229 Ill.

App. 3d 469, 474, 592 N.E.2d 668, 671 (1992) (“It is the responsibility of appellant to have

prepared and submitted to this court a record sufficient to allow the review of an issue.”). Thus,

the record before us is insufficient for us to determine that it was defendant’s trial counsel who

advised the clerk. Further, defendant was not precluded from raising an ineffective assistance of

counsel claim on appeal. Darr, 2018 IL App (3d) 150562, ¶ 99. As stated above, however,

defendant declined to pursue these claims in this appeal.

                                                -9-
¶ 40                                  B. Sentencing Hearing

¶ 41             Defendant argues he was deprived a fair sentencing hearing when the trial court

misstated his prior criminal history and relied upon the misstatement in aggravation to increase his

sentence. Defendant acknowledges he failed to properly preserve this issue for appeal but contends

we may excuse his forfeiture pursuant to the plain-error doctrine.

¶ 42             The plain-error doctrine is a “narrow and limited exception” allowing reviewing

courts to excuse a defendant’s forfeited claim of error. People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545, 931

N.E.2d 1184, 1187 (2010). For the doctrine to apply in a sentencing context, a defendant has the

burden of first demonstrating a clear or obvious error occurred. Id. If a defendant satisfies this

burden, then he must show “the error was so egregious as to deny the defendant a fair sentencing

hearing.” Id. If either element is not met, “the procedural default will be honored.” Id. Whether a

forfeited claim is reviewable as plain error is a question of law reviewed de novo. People v.

McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478, 485, 922 N.E.2d 344, 349 (2009).

¶ 43             “There is a strong presumption that the trial court based its sentencing

determination on proper legal reasoning, and a court of review should consider the record as a

whole, rather than focusing on a few words or statements by the trial court.” (Internal quotation

marks omitted.) People v. Sturgeon, 2019 IL App (4th) 170035, ¶ 103, 126 N.E.3d 703. However,

while the sentencing court may rely on reasonable inferences from the evidence in entering a

defendant’s sentence, it may not base its sentencing decision on speculation. People v. Robinson,

2015 IL App (1st) 130837, ¶ 92, 35 N.E.3d 1095. “The defendant bears the burden to affirmatively

establish that [his] sentence was based on an improper factor.” Sturgeon, 2019 IL App (4th)

170035, ¶ 103.

                                               - 10 -
¶ 44            Defendant contends the trial court improperly emphasized the need for deterrence

due to his prior sexual assault of a child offense when he had no prior conviction for sexual assault

of a child. When sentencing defendant, the court stated:

                “Specifically, I’d like to note in terms of Sentencing the prior conviction of a similar

                offense. I agree with the State that the—the Aggravating Factor No. 3, especially

                in light of this prior offense, and Aggravation Factor No. 7, the deterrence

                Aggravating Factor really come into play in this situation when we have a prior

                offense of a sexual assault of a child ***.”

Defendant points to his PSI, which indicates he was previously convicted of aggravated criminal

sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/12-16) (West 2004)), a Class 2 felony, in 2005. Defendant maintains no

evidence was presented to support the court’s finding he had been convicted of criminal sexual

assault of a child.

¶ 45            The State argues the trial court did not misstate defendant’s record but was correct

when describing defendant’s previous aggravated criminal sexual abuse conviction. According to

the State, it was defendant’s trial counsel who indicated the aggravated criminal sexual abuse

conviction involved a 15- or 16-year-old girl.

¶ 46            We disagree with defendant’s assertion nothing in the record suggests his history

includes criminal sexual assault of a child. Our review of the records reveals the PSI contains a list

of defendant’s previous convictions, including one for aggravated criminal sexual abuse. While

defendant’s 2005 conviction for aggravated criminal sexual abuse does not necessarily require the

victim be a child, it also does not exclude the offense from involving a child. See id. § 12-16(b),

(c)(1),(2), (d), (f). Moreover, it was defendant’s trial counsel that informed the trial court that

defendant’s prior conviction involved a child, stating, “[T]he Sex Abuse Class 2 in ’05; that case

                                                 - 11 -
involved a—I think a 15- or 16-year-old-girl though, nothing similar to this type of case.” Nothing

in the record rebuts trial counsel’s assertion. As such, we decline defendant’s invitation to take the

court’s statements during sentencing out of context to support his position, especially where the

record does not demonstrate the court relied on an improper sentencing factor. Because we find

defendant has failed to establish clear or obvious error occurred, his forfeiture of this issue cannot

be excused under the plain-error doctrine.

¶ 47                                    III. CONCLUSION

¶ 48           For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

¶ 49           Affirmed.

                                                - 12 -