People v. Jackson, 1–13–3741.

• Decision Date: 10 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 1–13–3741.,1–13–3741.
• Citation: 50 N.E.3d 66,401 Ill.Dec. 346
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Ieliot JACKSON, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

50 N.E.3d 66
401 Ill.Dec. 346

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee
v.
Ieliot JACKSON, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 1–13–3741.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division.

March 10, 2016.

50 N.E.3d 69

Michael J. Pelletier, Alan D. Goldberg, and David T. Harris, all of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Mary P. Needham, and Lisa Sterba, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Justice ELLIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

401 Ill.Dec. 349

¶ 1 Following a jury trial, defendant Ieliot Jackson was convicted of delivery of less than one gram of a controlled substance (heroin) within 1,000 feet of a school. 720 ILCS 570/407(b)(2) (West 2008). He was sentenced to 13 years in prison.

¶ 2 In defendant's first appeal, we vacated his sentence and remanded for new posttrial proceedings based on the trial court's failure to properly admonish defendant under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 401(a) (eff. July 1, 1984). People v. Jackson, 2013 IL App (1st) 112269–U, 2013 WL 3340724. On remand, the circuit court again denied defendant's posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and motion for a new trial. The court again sentenced defendant to 13 years in prison. The trial court also held defendant in contempt for walking out of the courtroom while being admonished on his right to appeal and added an additional six months to defendant's 13–year sentence.

¶ 3 Defendant raises several arguments in support of a second remand. Defendant initially argues that we must reverse his conviction and remand for a new trial because the trial court's failure to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (eff. May 1, 2007) was plain error, and the evidence at trial was closely balanced. Defendant alternatively argues, and the State agrees, that we must remand this case for a proper preliminary inquiry into his claims of ineffectiveness of counsel under People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181, 80 Ill.Dec. 62, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984). Defendant additionally argues, and the State again agrees, that we should remand this case for further proceedings to determine whether defendant should be permitted to proceed pro se for posttrial motions and sentencing. Finally, defendant contends that the case should be remanded to a different trial judge.

¶ 4 We agree with defendant that the trial court's Rule 431(b) admonishments were improper, but we hold that they did not constitute plain error because the evidence at trial was not closely balanced. We hold that the trial court did not conduct an adequate evaluation of defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the preliminary Krankel hearing. We further hold that the trial court improperly denied defendant his right to proceed pro se at the posttrial proceedings that followed the Krankel hearing. We thus affirm defendant's conviction, vacate the trial court's rulings at the Krankel hearing and on the motion for new trial, and vacate defendant's sentence. We remand this cause to a different trial judge for consideration of these posttrial matters.

¶ 5 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 6 Defendant was charged by indictment with delivery of a controlled substance and delivery of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school. He exercised his right to a jury trial. The trial court admonished the jury pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (eff. May 1, 2007), which we discuss in further detail below as part of our analysis of defendant's arguments. We first review the evidence presented at trial and the

401 Ill.Dec. 350

50 N.E.3d 70

details of jury deliberations, as discussed in our prior order.

¶ 7 A. Evidence at Trial

¶ 8 The State presented four witnesses at trial: Chicago police officer Clark Eichman, an undercover narcotics officer; Chicago police officer Charlie Person, a surveillance officer; Mary Ember, an investigator; and Lenetta Watson, a forensic scientist.

¶ 9 Officer Eichman testified that he first met the defendant on May 30, 2009, on the 4800 block of West Superior in Chicago. He identified defendant in court. Officer Eichman was parked on the north side of the street in the middle of the block in a covert vehicle. Defendant was on a BMX bicycle. The encounter lasted no more than a minute. Defendant asked Officer Eichman for his telephone number and his name. Officer Eichman gave defendant his number and told him that his name was “Ike.” Defendant entered the information into a cell phone. Officer Eichman then drove away.

¶ 10 Officer Eichman drove westbound on West Superior and then made a left-hand turn southbound on Lamon, at which point his cell phone rang. Officer Eichman did not recognize the telephone number but recognized defendant's voice when he answered. Defendant told Officer Eichman to call him if he needed anything, which Officer Eichman understood to mean narcotics. Officer Eichman saved the number to his cell phone and labeled it “BMX,” so he would remember it was the number belonging to the person on the BMX bicycle. Officer Eichman did not create any written documentation of this interaction. He told some of his team members, none of whom documented it. Officer Eichman testified that an officer, either Officer Williams or Officer Calvo, created a contact card for defendant that day.

¶ 11 Two weeks later, on June 13, 2009, at approximately 9 a.m., Officer Eichman was with a team of surveillance officers and undercover officers to make a controlled purchase of narcotics. Officer Eichman's role was the undercover purchasing officer. Also present was his supervisor, Sergeant Santos, who was going to be a surveillance officer, as well as Officer Person, the primary surveillance officer, and Officer Fleming, the secondary surveillance officer. There were also two enforcement officers present, Officer Williams and Officer Calvo.

¶ 12 At 9:19 a.m., Officer Eichman received a call on his cell phone from “BMX.” When he answered, a male voice said, “Ike, you good.” Officer Eichman responded no and told the caller that he needed to get “hooked up,” which he testified was a street term meaning he wanted to purchase narcotics. The caller told Officer Eichman to go to the area of 4800 West Superior. Officer Eichman told the caller he was 30 minutes away. After finishing the phone call, Officer Eichman told his team members, who were all with him at the time, that he had just received a call from BMX, so that they could go set up the block where they believed the purchase would take place. Once set up, the surveillance team contacted Officer Eichman, who then called BMX at 9:39 a.m. Officer Eichman testified that the person who answered the telephone had the same voice as the person to whom he had spoken 10 minutes earlier. Officer Eichman told him that he was 5 minutes away, and the caller asked how many “blows” he needed. Officer Eichman explained at trial that “blow” is a street term for heroin. Officer Eichman told the caller that he needed four “blows.”

¶ 13 Officer Eichman drove to the area of 4800 West Superior in an unmarked vehicle. He was alone in his vehicle and

401 Ill.Dec. 351

50 N.E.3d 71

had turned off his police radio before he arrived. He parked on the north side of the street at 4856 West Superior, approximately one block away from Nash Grammar School. He saw Officer Person parked approximately two houses or 50 feet away, on the south side of the block. At 9:46 a.m., Officer Eichman called back the BMX telephone number. The person who answered had the same voice as the individual with whom Officer Eichman had spoken earlier. When Officer Eichman told him that he was on the block, the person said “is that you at the end of the block.” Officer Eichman said yes, hung up, and began looking for the person using his side and rearview mirrors. Officer Eichman testified that he then saw defendant walking toward his vehicle and, as he got closer, recognized him as the individual whom he had met on May 30 and whom he had called “BMX.” He recognized defendant's distinctive beard.

¶ 14 Officer Eichman testified that he spoke to defendant through his open window and defendant gave him four small Ziploc bags with blue tint on one side and an “S” logo, each of which contained white powder. Officer Eichman gave defendant $40 of prerecorded funds, which defendant placed in his pocket, and Officer Eichman drove away. He then contacted his team members via the police radio that a narcotics transaction had taken place and gave a physical description of defendant, including his clothing and last known location. Officer Eichman then returned to the police station at Homan Square.

¶ 15 Once at the Homan Square station, Officer Eichman identified defendant from a photo array. He also inventoried the items he had purchased. Officer Eichman testified that he learned that defendant had been arrested 11 days later, on June 24, 2010, on the 4800 block of West Superior.

¶ 16 Officer Charlie Person testified that...